And of course the inevitable... What happens when a less expensive product is introduced into the market with similar or superior attributes? Margin Compression! We analyzed three big Wall Street banks, starting with the "Riskiest Bank on the Street" (time permitting, reference our hard hitting, prescient research from early 2008).

You will get to touch, play with and trade value via UltraCoin. Below is a screenshot of UltraCoin running on a Mac. I will also be taking applications for large scale beta testers and entities who wish to have customized value trading solutions created for them.

At elite universities, fewer MBA and finance candidates are willing to even consider a life of missed weddings, busted romances and deep-into-the-night deal negotiations. The percentage of Harvard Business School graduates entering investment banking, sales or trading dropped to 5 percent last year from 12 percent in 2006, while those entering technology almost tripled to 18 percent during that period.

At the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, the percentage of MBAs entering investment banking dropped to 13.3 percent last year from 26 percent in 2006, while those entering tech more than doubled to 11.1 percent.

Those of you who have been following finance from the Wall Street/Bay Street/Canary Wharf perspective realize that this is a cyclical occurence. Basically, Wall Street falls out of favor with MBA whiz kids every ten years of so. But!!!! This time is different. This time around, Wall Street, et. al. is about to succumb to the destructive forces of technology that transformed, revolutionized, disintermediated, gutted and absolutely reinvigorated the media, news and retail industries.

That's right! The Internet Paradigm Shift has finally hit Global Finance... and it's going to hurt, and hurt a lot!

As many know, the I've poured my time and resources into a start-up by the name of UltraCoin. Many have been clamoring for white papers and details, and I have been purposely secretive about such. The reason? I needed to entrency protection from my competition - the money center banks. How did I do this? Well...

I patented the future of Global Finance!

This video illustrates my presentation to both the mainstream and alternative media as I start my capital raising rounds from venture capitalists and strategic investos alike. Check it out!

We're looking for financial and human capital as we prepare to expand globally. Financial capital is self-explanatory. On the human capital side...

We're seeking a full stack contract developer. Must be proficient in: Java or C#; git, bzr, or similar. Must have a solid understanding of: race conditions and how to avoid them; scalable concurrency and data integrity architectural concepts (replication, sharding, etc.); software development processes and best practices. Proficiency in some CRUD technology (*SQL, NoSQL, etc.) as well as and some scripting language (Javascript, PHP, Python, etc.) is highly preferred. Experience with the Bitcoin protocol is a huge plus. Your first interview is to e-mail your resume along with a response to this challenge: https://gist.github.com/mbogosian/28815ae606c663c983c3

Must be willing to sign an NDA. You should be knowledgeable and competent, but we prefer grit to genius. Prima donnas need not apply.

"Dominic Wilson and Jose Ursua of the firm's markets research division are first up. They argue that Bitcoin fails to meet both basic criteria of a viable currency: while there remains an outside chance for widespread acceptance as a medium of exchange, as a stable source of value, it has so far failed. That undermines the premise that Bitcoin could serve as a way of short-circuiting exchange rates in inflation-prone countries."

But wait a minute! Goldman's business business is growing at a fraction of this pace, and actually negative in some areas. So, if Bitcoin as a currency and payment system is a failure, what the hell is Goldmam? Of course, Business Insider goes on to report...

For most users what matters is not the comparison with other currencies, but a comparison with the volatility of the currency that they hold (dollars in the US for instance) in terms of the things that they need to buy. The volatility of consumer prices (in dollars) has been even lower than FX rates, even if measured over a period including the 1970s. Put simply, if you hold cash today in most developed countries, you know within a few percentage points what you will be able to buy with it a day, a week or a year from now.

This is Bullshit! Say it to the more mathematically challenged, my bonus hungry friends. Let's run the math using theusinflationcalculator.com:

As you can see, if you measure things from the '70s as the esteemed, erstwhile Wall Street aficiaondo from Goldman recommended, then you would have less than 17% of your buying power left. Yes, bitcoin is volatile, but its volatility stems from the price going up and down, while the USD has primarily just went down. You know that saying about the frog in the slowly heated boiling pot of water, right?

In addition, both of the largest Bitcoin payment processors absorb the exchange rate volatility for their customers, or did the best of breed Goldman analysts somehow overlook this pertinent fact?

Wilson and Ursua include this graph showing volatility of Bitcoin versus the Argentine peso, the yen, the euro, the pound, and U.S. inflation. It's not even close.

But wait a minute! If the largest payment processors absorb the volatility and market risk of their customers, then Goldman must assuredly be referring to the currencies above from an investment perspective, no?

Yes! Bitcoin is truly volatile, indeed, but the guy at Goldman are cheating, hoping that the rest of us don't know our finance and/or basic common sense. You see, they are looking at just one side of the equation - the side that favors fiat currencies and disfavors bitcoin. You see, risk is the price of reward. For every reward you seek, you pay a price in risk. The goal, as a smart investor, is to pay little risk for much reward. Goldman is trying to make it appear as if you are paying nothing but risk for bitcoin and getting little reward in return. Let's see how that pans out when someone who knows what they're doing chimes in. From the BoomBustBlogresearch report Digital Currencies' Risks, Rewards & Returns - An Into Into Bitcoin Investing For Longer Term Horizons:

GS return on equity has declined substantially due to deleverage and is only marginally higher than its current cost of capital. With ROE down to c12% from c20% during pre-crisis levels, there is no way a stock with high beta as GS could justify adequate returns to cover the inherent risk. For GS to trade back at 200 it has to increase its leverage back to pre-crisis levels to assume ROE of 20%. And for that GS has to either increase its leverage back to 25x. With curbs on banks leverage this seems highly unlikely. Without any increase in leverage and ROE, the stock would only marginally cover returns to shareholders given that ROE is c12%. Even based on consensus estimates the stock should trade at about where it is trading right now, leaving no upside potential. Using BoomBustBlog estimates, the valuation drops considerably since we take into consideration a decrease in trading revenue or an increase in the cost of funding in combination with a limitation of leverage due to the impending global regulation coming down the pike.

Now that we see how hard it is to truly produce Alpha, I query thee... What do you think would happen if a financial maverick, an out of the box thinker who's different from all of those other guys, got a seed round of funding for the most disruptive product to hit the finance world since the printing press? What if that seed round was for $8 million dollars, with a preferred A series coming right behind it? What would such a cash flush company do, being one of the most cash flush Bitcoin companies in the world? Hmmmnnn!!!

Speakin' of Goldman Sachs...

I anticipate being in the market very soon for (I'm not thier yet, but hopefully very soon):

CTO - Chief Technology Officer

COO - Chief Opertating Officer

General Counsel

CMO - Chief Marketing Officer

CFO - Chief Financial Officer

As well as skilled Java and Blockchain developers.

Hit me via reggie at ultra-coin.com if you have an interest in coming on board.

Bloomberg reports Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, Britain’s biggest government-owned lender, is on track for its largest pretax loss since 2008 after setting aside 3.1 billion pounds more ($5.1 billion) for legal and compensation claims. We will delve into this report in detail, but first a little background so we're all viewing 20/20.

I've been spending a lot of time rebuilding the banking system as software over a cryptocurrency framework. Basically, I'm building a more efficient, more "Trustworthy" financial system. Many are doubtful of these endeavors. I say, don't underestimate the effort. For one, a more efficient, more trustworthy system is sorely needed. Here we are, 7 years after the start of the great financial trainwreck that I'm known for predicting, and I'm still at it doing the same thing to the same industry. This is only possible when there's a structural problem in the industry. A problem that rapid advancements in technology are ripe to solve.

On Thursday, 11 April 2013 I penned, I Illustrate How The Irish Banking Cancer Spreads To The UK Taxpayer And Metastasizes Through US Markets! wherein I clearly illustrated that RBS is materially understating its liabilities AND even went so far as to include links to the SEC and the UK banking regulator so that US/UK taxpayers and investors can notify our erstwhile regulator(s) to the potential of financial shenanigans. The root of the problem is that RBS has materially under-reported its liabilities (in my oh so humble opinion.) Those that stress tested RBS (the same erstwhile professionals that allowed the Irish banks to pass their stress tests 3 months before they started collapsing) apparently overlooked humongous swaths of liabilities.

The amount of evidence that I produced to back my claims was prodigous...

What happened behind closed doors?

Ulster Bank gave a first floating charge in favor of the Central Bank of Ireland (an arm of the European Central Bank) and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland. U.S. investors would have had to rely on the contents of The Royal Bank of Scotland's 2008 Annual Accounts which apparently (in my opinion) concealed the existence of the CRO registered charges to the Bank of Ireland.

The provision includes 1.9 billion pounds for lawsuits and fines tied mostly to the sale of $91 billion of mortgage-backed securities from 2005 to 2007, the lender said yesterday. It follows agreements Deutsche Bank AG, JPMorgan Chase & Co. and UBS AG (UBSN) struck with U.S. regulators to settle claims they didn’t provide adequate disclosure about mortgage-backed debt sold in the housing bubble that preceded the 2008 financial crisis.

Are they referring to claims similar to the ones I made that RBS bought Ulster Bank full of unrecognized mortgage crap, levered up off it and hid the debt? I strongly suggest my readers brush up on how The Irish Banking Cancer Spreads to the UK.

More than five years after giving RBS the biggest bank bailout in history, the government still hasn’t been able to cut its 80 percent stake.

... “When the crisis broke, the bank was involved in a number of different businesses in multiple countries that have subsequently faced heavy scrutiny by customers and regulators,” McEwan, 56, said in yesterday’s statement. “The scale of the bad decisions during that period means that some problems are still just emerging.”

... The charges led the bank to cut its forecast for its core Tier 1 capital ratio, a measure of financial strength. RBS expects the ratio will be about 11 percent at the end of 2013, or as much as 8.5 percent under the latest rules set by the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision. That’s down from the company’s estimate of 11.6 percent and 9.1 percent in November.

“Fronting up to our past mistakes is very expensive, but RBS is a much stronger bank that can deal with these costs on its own while running a good capital position,” McEwan said on the call. “Dealing with these litigation and conduct issues is essential if we are to move the bank forward.”

Well, I still haven't noticed them come clean on the Ulster Bank charge issue. If they really are going to "Front[ing] up... past mistakes" then they really need to address this, no? If the Ulster Bank charges are included in the Basel capitalization guidelines, then RBS needs a bailout, and needs one Now! It doesn't end their though. On Monday, 20 May 2013 I queried Who is RBS? Royal BS... or the Royal Bank of Scotland, to wit:

"An independent Scotland would have an exceptionally large banking sector compared to the size of its economy - with banking assets of more than 1250 percent of Scottish [gross domestic product] - making it more vulnerable to financial shocks and the volatility of the sector," the Treasury report said on Monday.

The report pointed out Scotland's banking exposure would dwarf that of Iceland and Cyprus, two countries that faced severe banking collapses in recent years. Iceland's banks, for example, had assets equivalent to 880 per cent of GDP, while Cyprus, which faced a banking crisis in March, had total banking assets of around 700 per cent of GDP.

"At the end of September 2012, the two largest banks – the Cyprus Popular Bank and Bank of Cyprus – had assets in the region of 210 per cent and 175 per cent of Cyprus's GDP respectively."

"It is worth noting that, if Scotland became independent, its banking sector would be similarly concentrated (with two large players, Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland and a number of smaller firms), and that an independent Scotland's domestic banking sector would be likely to be significantly larger than that of Cyprus (assuming no change to firms' domicile arrangements)."

I penned, I Illustrate How The Irish Banking Cancer Spreads To The UK Taxpayer And Metastasizes Through US Markets! wherein I clearly illustrated that RBS is materially understating its liabilities AND even went so far as to include links to the SEC and the UK banking regulator so that US/UK taxpayers and investors can notify our erstwhile regulator(s) to the potential of financial shenanigans. The root of the problem is that RBS has materially under-reported its liabilities (in my oh so humble opinion.) Those that stress tested RBS (the same erstwhile professionals that allowed the Irish banks to pass their stress tests 3 months before they started collapsing) apparently overlooked humongous swaths of liabilities. The charge documents referred to in the aforelinked article are definitively not apparent in the recent bank stress testing’ conducted by the European Banking Authority, at least not in the summary results that the EBA have made available. For those who are still skeptical, I beg thee reference the RBS Stress Test download.

To think, there are actually many who query as to why I seek to make a more efficient financial system...

{youtube}Pw2b24JvOIc{/youtube}

With the latest advances in technology, I can literally replace large swaths of bank functions with software. Software that doesn't lie, cheat, steal, or screw you for a bonus! Zero Trust software...

If the RBS/Ulster Bank mortgage-backed secutities would have been traded through UltraCoin, rehyppthecation, double-spending, over-leverage, and thrice pledged assets would have been a thing of the past. These contracts are overollateralized (200%) and use no leverage, yet still hold the promise of significant return, not to mention a mere fraction of the cost of the big bank stuff. Will the dawn of this technology herald the end of fractional reserve banking as we know it?

Let it be known, Wall Street banks' profit margin IS my business model!!!

]]>reggie@boombustblog.com (Reggie Middleton)BoomBustBlogThu, 30 Jan 2014 10:58:42 +0000Why Bankers Don't Like Reggie: How Many "One Time" Items Do We Need To Make An Item No Longer "One Time"?http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9156-jp-morgans-earnings-illustrate-why-boombustblog-is-banned-in-many-bank-intranets
http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9156-jp-morgans-earnings-illustrate-why-boombustblog-is-banned-in-many-bank-intranets

The third-quarter loss was $380 million, or 17 cents a share, compared with a profit of $5.71 billion, or $1.40, a year earlier, the New York-based company said today in a statement. Shares of the company rose 2.6 percent at 7:50 a.m. after profit adjusted for one-time items beat analysts’ estimates.

...The pretax legal charge was $9.2 billion, compared with $684 million a year earlier. Litigation reserves at the end of September were $23 billion, the bank said, adding that “reasonably possible” losses in excess of those reserves were $5.7 billion.

And the (now perennial) kicker...

JPMorgan rose to $53.90 in New York trading from $52.52 at the close yesterday. Earnings adjusted for one-time items were $1.42 a share, exceeding the $1.30 average estimate of 20 analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.

Pray thee tell me, how many times do "one time" items have to occur before they're no longer considered "one time" items???!!! JP Morgan "found" earnings in the form of reserve releases (again), from the press release:

JPMorgan Chase & Co. and the biggest U.S. banks face billions of dollars in legal costs related to their role in the financial crisis, threatening their profits and the stock price gains they made in 2010, analysts said.

JPMorgan, the second biggest bank by assets, reported $5.2 billion of legal costs in the first nine months of 2009, compared with a gain of $10 million in the same period a year earlier. The costs would rise if the bank reserves for multibillion-dollar lawsuits byLehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and the trustee liquidating Bernard L. Madoff’s firm.

... JPMorgan’s third-quarter net profit of $4.4 billion, up 23 percent from the year earlier, would have been larger if it hadn’t set aside $1.3 billion of pretax income for lawsuits and $1 billion for mortgage repurchases. Banks haven’t yet reported their results for the fourth quarter.

In a Nutshell, JPM’s quarterly results were downright horrible – as we expected and warned of in our previous quarterly analyses (see notes at bottom of page)…

JP Morgan’s Q3 net revenue declined 11% y/y (-5% q/q) to $24.8bn as investment banking revenue declined 18% y/y (-9% q/q) to $12.6bn from $13.9bn in the previous year and net interest income declined 2% y/y (-2% q/q, off of a combination of ZIRP victimization and a rapidly shrinking asset base and loan book) to $12.5bn versus $12.7bn in the previous year. Non-interest expense increased 7% y/y (-2% q/q) to $14.4bn as compensation expenses to net revenues remained broadly flat (28% vs 27.5%) while non-compensation expenses to net revenues jumped to 33% vs 23% in the corresponding period last year. As a result of “Fraudclosure” we expect this number to skyrocket next quarter. Overall, the efficiency ratio (total expenses-to-net revenues) increased to 60% vs 51% and we expect this ratio to spike next quarter as well as the banking business becomes even more expensive.

As a result, banks allowances for loan losses have decreased to 4.9% in Q3 from 5.1% in Q2 and 4.7% in previous year. Although under provisioning has helped the bank to mask its dearth in profits it has also materially undermined its ability to absorb losses if economic conditions worsen. The Eyles test, a measure of banks ability to absorb losses, has consequently worsened to 1.9% in Q3 from 3.7% in Q2 and 5.9% in Q3 09.

Wait a minute! If Reggie Middleton complained about reserve pulling and legal expenses 1,2 and 3 years ago and was proven right, how are the occurence of these items in 2013 to be considered "One Time" items????

Exactly!

In short: of the firm's $1.42 in pro forma EPS, a whopping $1.59 was purely from the addback of these two items.

]]>reggie@boombustblog.com (Reggie Middleton)BoomBustBlogFri, 11 Oct 2013 12:37:19 +0000What Angela Merkel Could Learn From Me and Using Glass To Spy On The Spieshttp://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9118-what-angela-merkel-could-learn-from-me-and-using-glass-to-spy-on-the-spies
http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9118-what-angela-merkel-could-learn-from-me-and-using-glass-to-spy-on-the-spies

My latest appearance on the Max Keiser show at 11:52 in the video.

{youtube}FE63bb0pQfk{/youtube}

As for Android, Google, Glass, security and privacy, I took the liberty of posting the discussion from the my last article on this topic. It should be of interest to both the paranoid and the techy types....

0#14 Continuing what I said on Google Glass — John Boyd2013-07-16 12:02

Reg, As to your replique to my comment about Google Glass being a real time snooping tool for the NSA, I would say that what you say is true for those of us with the technical skills to build from the Android source code and then load it on to our phones (maybe there is a business opportunity there). The other issue is whether one can control what gets automatically loaded on the phone subsequent to deploying one's own build. Most people would not be up for the challenge. But I'm seriously thinking there's an opportunity there!

Everything you do is being monitored at carrier level. The NSA taps the cables.

Anyone who thinks DuckDuckGo and StartPage are safe are delusional. Entry and exit points to these services are again tapped at the wire level. The NSA would have no problems in illiciting the certificates supporting https.

You can see why American telecom companies want the contracts to rebuild communication infrastructures in countries their Wmpire has just dismantled.

Yet through disinformation borne ignorance, we already have the masses clamoring for a "safe' closed proprietary OS like iOS as compared to an open tool chest exposed to oh so many eyes.

That's not true. No-one is choosing iOS or Windows OS in order to be "safe". Similarly, next to no-one is choosing Android in order to be safer either.

OS's are chosen because of the hardware people think they want after seeing the promotion. If not the hardware, people choose the OS because of the apps they've seen their friends use, or promoted 'cool' apps.

As you say Reggie about the banks, no-one cares until some large section of society really suffers a loss. When it comes to surveillance and police states, waiting for that loss means you've already left it too late (unless you're watching from another country..).

As an aside, I really don't see people warming to being so constantly connected to hardware/communication etc. You will get a lot of people adicted to it like they are the internet, 24 hour news etc but I think it will wear a lot of people down and they'll reject the idea in the longer term - even you took off the headset in the Keiser Report interview the other day as I presume it was a distraction?

>You don't have the ability to submit >changes to even be considered for >acceptance

Your precious Google bozos made a mess of their Open Source modules. They scooped up open source, made copies of it in such as way changes can't be freely propagate back and forth to the original Open Source they took.

They just scooped up Open Source, copied it and moved it into their brand new projects. Really just a copy and paste type hack.

Google are using Open Source, but have done so it such as way as not to contribute back to the ecosystem they are using. Yes, they have their own brand new Open Source project with a brand new name, but the original modules they scooped up won' have changes easily propagating back and forth.

This is what happens when Google hires people straight out of college with no real world experience. Like hires like.

Google Chrome is hardly a beacon of engineering brilliance on Google's part. The hard part was done by Apple - WebKit.Apple produced the first fast JavaScript compiler.

>Windows and iOS all have the same >problems, except for the facts that

Isn't the core of iOS based on the Open Source operating system FreeBSD? FreeBSD rocks.

Apple's Safari web browser is based on the Open Source component WebKit, which is turn in based on the Open Source web browser Konqueror. Apple's JavaScript to machine code compiler (used in their web browser Safari) is again Open Source.

WebKit is a HTML5 and CSS renderer and supports multimedia and much more.

Google based their Chrome web browser on Apple's WebKit. If it wasn't for Apple, Google Chrome would exist in its current form.

By the way when I've developed websites, I've noticed the exact same JavaScript bugs in Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome. I wonder how that could have happened. It could just be a coincidence.

As I said before even if you have the entire source of Android read by people around the world, it still isn't secure. There are so many other lines of attack outside the handset.

OK you do have a valid point. A mainly Open Source operating system has to be more secure.

But really there are so many lines of attack.

By default Android does not have good security - who you communicate with can still be tracked. You need to get 3rd party software to be really secure on Android.

Building an operating system from source code is a difficult operation. There will be so many dependencies. Not many people will be able to do this.

I may make mistakes in some of my points, but you are meant to read all of what I say and take it as a whole.

> Your multiple posts here

Isn't that an ad hominem attack?

I am not a fool. Nor am I something that has crawled out of the woodwork.

I run a small business that sells a relatively inexpensive product to a very large number of people. I've sold my product to Microsoft, Intel, Apple and a vast number of other companies. I am not a fool. I've even sold my product to at least two companies that Google has taken over.

You are incidentally one of my favourite guest speakers to appear on the Keiser Report. You concisely summarize Google's business model as cost-shifting. I can see the smartness is saying things concisely.

I do advertise on bing.com and on other websites as well. They charge $0.05 to $0.15 per click. As a lot of companies only get 1 sale per 100 website visitors, this is a fair charge.

Google charging $0.80 to $5 per click is excessive. I don't know why Google does this. Surely the number of potential advertising customers they have is vast. They should aim to have low costs and make it up on the volume. To extent this is what I do.

Look I am really trying to make a valid point here and what I say is echoed across the Internet.

Google charges advertisers too much. All their money for acquisitions and their internal army of people that can't write software anymore without getting a check book out and buying it has a cost. That cost is borne by advertisers.

All I am saying is that Google is a hard man over money.

I have studied all the other companies in my niche. I see competition selling products at a very low cost if they don't use Google advertising. I see competitors charge 50% more than me when they turn on Google Adwords.

I just want to get a word out that having everybody use Google has a cost. That cost is the increased cost of products sold by everybody that is not Google.

Google spanks you if you use the display network as they say your click-rate is lower and so your cost per click on the search network has to go up.

If you use an exact phrase match with the words x, y and z and another company with nothing to do with you occasionally advertisers with the words a, b and z, then Google will spank you again as they say the competition is paying more, when they aren't really your competition at all.

I see the cost of products sold on the Internet go up 50% and all the cash rolls into Google.

Monopolies are bad. People need to use other search engines such as ixquick.com and duckduckgo.com

I have a very balanced view. Your multiple posts here show that your view may be less than balanced. If you have a problem with Google's advertising methods, you should choose another provider. There are alternatives, particularly in social media. You can also alter your approach to Google. The algorithm change was likely more to improve the credibility of search results than to hurt your business. Either way, you can find experts that maximize efficacy of coding for Google search results. Comparing to Bing, Yahoo, etc. is less relevant they have inferior products when one factors in capabilities, which is likely why they have less market share.The network effect creates an unfair advantage, yes.... but to obtain the network effect advantage you likley had a superior product to begin with. Ask users of Microsoft Office...

> Who has the time to read through a mountain of computer source code? Computer source is difficult to read and understand. Reading source code written by other people and understanding it, will take longer than writing it yourself.

Nah! We are not protected.

Just listen to the objections you are raising and you can see how and why Android is safer to the populace than all of the popular competition. Windows and iOS all have the same problems, except for the facts that

You dont have access to the code

You don't have the ability to submit changes to even be considered for acceptance

With Android, you don't need for Google to accept your personal changes, you can simply roll your own personal version and use it for yourself which should be the preference for the paranoid types. You can't do this with any other popular OS.

The amound of independent eyes on Android trumps that of any other OS, by far. If something has a chance of getting caught (ex. spy code) it will likely get caught on Android code base. This has already happened, read XDA developers code posts for the HTC Evo

There is nothing to stop someone taking Open Source software and just before building it into runnable code, adding a crack to make intercepting or decrypting communication easier.

How can one little change be spotted in reams of incomprehensibl y machine code assuming you even know what version of all the different source code modules to compare against? Even if you read through all the code it would take you a lifetime.

> This means that anyone and everyone can > modify the code base and if those > modifications (improvements) are > accepted into the official code base

Yes, but there is still Google sitting as a referee deciding what gets into the official code base.

Suppose I want to triple the bit length they use for SSL / https, will Google let me submit the changes?

If all communication is being snooped then you have no protection. Even if you use encryption, the NSA will still have a record of who you are communicating with and how much traffic goes between you and where they are located.

Even if you use encryption, if the bitlength isn't high enough President ODumber will crack it. I don't know enough about cryptography, but if the algorithm has a flaw then you are vulnerable as well.

They can still tell what search terms you are using.

Do you use an encrypted email client? Encrypted voice over a phone line? How do you know for sure the software you download doesn't have a flaw in it. Very few people are smart enough to understand the level of mathematics to determine this, plus have knowledge of software as well. Who has the time to read through a mountain of computer source code? Computer source is difficult to read and understand. Reading source code written by other people and understanding it, will take longer than writing it yourself.

Perhaps Reggie should try to get a more balanced view of Google. I can't say enough monopolies are really bad for the world. Maybe consumers can get some free stuff in the short term. But free doesn't exist. If one person gets a freebee, someone else is getting screwed out of money.

The Internet freed people to produce innovative goods without high start-up costs of having to have bricks-n-mortar shops. I myself started up a company producing a product head-and-shoulders above all of the competition. My website used to be at the top of Google's search results. Whether it is intentional or not, Google have jacked up my advertising costs and bang! in one search algorithm update knocked me off the front page. On bing.com and other alternative search engines, I'm near the top.

When I started out, my website didn't have good natural search results. But I could reach a large number of customers cheaply via cheap click rates. That time has passed now. Google's greed is blocking off the Internet for small companies wishing to start up with limited advertising budgets.

Reggie get a balanced view of what is going on and look at the links below.

Reggie Middleton is a smart man and I always enjoy listening to his insights.

But there is a flip-side to Google and Reggie should think about this as well.

Reggie waxes lyrical about Google’s cost shifting and cheaper-than-free goodies. There is a real cost to this.

I have advertised on Google Adwords for years. That experience has made me dislike Google as a company. I got stung with obvious click fraud. I emailed Google at least twice. They denied click fraud ever takes place. I have paid Google vast sums of money over the years and as a long-standing customer they should have taken the time to examine the evidence I gave them. My whole daily budget was used up immediately at the start of each day on an Indian screensaver website. Yes, immediately. When I turned off the display network, my daily budget wasn’t used up in a whole day when my adverts displayed direct on google.com. Plus I looked in my webserver logs and I had no real visitors from this 3rd party publisher.

Google Adwords contains a mass of code trying to extract as much money as possible for Google from advertisers, even at the expense of making it uneconomic to advertise with them.

I displayed for a while on the display network, where typically the click-through rates are lower. I emailed Google about my eye-wateringly high click costs on the search network. I was told the display network was making my search network costs higher! This is wrong. There should be no linkage between the two as everybody knows the click through rates on the display network as lower than it someone was doing a specific search direct on google.com. If you get low click through rates, Google bumps up your cost per click.

For long stretches of time, I have had no competition in my niche advertising on Google. I sell low cost products and quite frankly none of my competition can afford Google’s high costs in a low product cost market. Yet my click-rates are uneconomically high in the absence of direct competition. This is so wrong. Google's auction model is opaque at best.

Google explains this via broad matching and synonyms. It seems if a big company – with a totally unrelated product to yours – uses broad matching for their keywords, then even only a 1 keyword overlap in a phrase of 3 -4 keywords, will bump up your click costs. This is wrong.

If bing.com can charge $0.05 for a click, then why doe greedy Google need to charge at least a whole order of magnitude more and often much more than that?

I should also mention that I set a daily budget. Google regularly went over that increasing my monthly costs to well over what I can reasonably pay. I searched the Internet and I found out Google has been sued over exceeding peoples’ set budgets.

My response was to set my daily budget 20% below that wish I wish to pay. Everything is geared up by default to sting people – perhaps unintentionally .

So, let's revisit Glass. Glass is a cool device, but from a hardware perspective, it's not expensive to build once engineered. If the Moto X can be sold for $200, that will likely be the ceiling for Glass, which would probably be sold for less if subsidized by Google. Throw in a half billion dollar ad budget (Glass is already extremely popular and is not advertised or even for sale yet) and you have a definite game changer in the mix.

Imagine if these computer glasses that changes the way we do everything sold for $150, with the full marketing awareness powers of Google behind them. Uh Oh, it's a whole new world.

A market that's being levitated by central bank magicians running short on magic spells...

Regulatory pressure, which I feel is quite material and inevitable, but will not be a major factor in the near term.

]]>reggie@boombustblog.com (Reggie Middleton)BoomBustBlogTue, 16 Jul 2013 16:52:35 +0000Free Advice Is Sometimes Worth More Than You Paid for It. On That Note, Irishman... Take Your Money And Run!!!http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9112-free-advice-is-sometimes-worth-a-little-more-than-you-paid-for-it-on-that-note-irishman-take-your-money-and-run
http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9112-free-advice-is-sometimes-worth-a-little-more-than-you-paid-for-it-on-that-note-irishman-take-your-money-and-run

Free advice is sometimes worth a little more than you paid for it. On that note, Irishmen should take note of how much you paid for this research and then... Take your money and run!

These posts focus on an explicit and stern warning that AIB is drastically undercapitalized and quite possibly the purveyor of a massive fraud on the Irish people, US investors and regulators and German taxpayers.

Second, we anticipated fiscal problems in the Irish state as far back as 2010 when everyone swore that they were the poster child of austerity. Subscribers, see Ireland public finances projections. Professional and institutional subscribers should email me for a link to a live spreadsheet that can allow you to run your own calculations on toasted Ireland's finances really are.

AIB has inccurred significant debt from which the underlying collateral has significantly diminished. This caused the need for even more capital and more borrowing. It also apparently caused it to change the wording in its annual statements regarding repos, potentially allowing it to conceal financial aid in the form of even more debt .from another party. After all, when you borrow something it's a loan right, as in additional debt??? Below, you see a loophole for near unlimited borrowing, and not a peep will show up in the financial reporting!

Of course, theres more...AIB Charge Discrepency

Definitions: Charge - The document evidencing mortgagesecurity required by Crown Law (law derived from English law). A Frixed Charge refers to a defined set of assets and is usually registered. A Floating Charge refers to other assets which change from time to time (ie. cash, inventory, etc.), which become a Fixed Charge after a default.

The charge document below, which was registered with Ireland’s Company Registration Office (CRO), states that the charge is in respect of the Company’s participation in Target 2-Ireland. It is also in respect of ‘all present and future liabilities whatsoever’ of Allied Irish Bank Plc. (to the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland or to the European Central Bank). The charge is over ‘Eligible Securities’.

Target2 is a European Union payment system. I believe it is misleading to indicate in the annual accounts that Target 2 has a bearing on the security that has been given.

In the short particulars section of the charge; the property charged to the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority is over ‘all rights, title, interest and benefit, present and future, of AIB Plc. in and to each of the Eligible Securities from time to time, where ‘ Eligible Securities’ means, at any time securities of such a class or description as may from time to time be designated by the ECB as ‘Eligible for Sale and /or Purchase, as the case may be.’ (Refer to actual CRO charge document below)

AIB Charge Discrepency1 copy

image004image009 copy

In the Irish version of the Bank’s annual Accounts (2008) and the SEC 20F (page 223 - 2) it states that the charge was placed in favour of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland over all of AIB’S ‘right, title, interest and benefit present and future in and to certain segregated securities.’

Using the description ‘certain segregated securities’ is completely different to the description all ‘eligible securities.’

It appears that AIB is stating that they have given ‘certain segregated securities’ as security to the ECB whereas the ECB actually decides which securities will be designated as ‘eligible’. The charge is in favor of the Central Bank and is over ‘all present and future liabilities whatsoever’ of AIB. This charge is a floating charge over repo agreements, aka Eligible Securities - securities that the graphic above demonstrates can go on ad nauseum and way beyond the entities prudent ability to repay, yet not appear on the balance sheet or in its regulatory reporting!!!. These securities have been purchased by the ECB through the repo agreements.

Thus, it appears as if this floating charge granted to the ECB is over assets that the ECB already owned. The floating charge was given to the ECB by AIB for emergency funding (emergency liquidity). Do you see a circular argument here? A potential Ponzi even???!!!! I warned my paying subscribers three years ago, Beware of the Potential Irish Ponzi Scheme!

For those who don't get it, AIB is essentially asset/equity broke. All properties considered as marketable/acceptable collateral (in other words anything of real, tangible value) jas already been pledged to the ECB. EVERYTHING!!! To the prudent depositor, this is all that needs to be said, but there's more, much more, Irish men and women, prepare to be CYPRUS'D!!!

If you believe that the information above actually identifies a gross misrepresentation of fact, omission or outright fraud, simply contact the SEC and let them know that Reggie Middleton suggested they look into it. You can actually use this form to convey my message.

Remember, extreme wealth concentrates, so you don't have to... Coming from a "Cyprus'd" bank near you!

A little over two years ago I queried "Is Another Banking Crisis Inevitable?". This post attracted the attention of certain ING executives who apparently were asking themsevles the same question. I was invited as the keynote speaker at their valuation conference in Amsterdam wherein I dropped the negative reality bomb! Interest rates were GUARANTEED to spike and when they do, those banks with fictitious bank sheet values and business models predicated upon credit bubble metrics were GUARANTEED to start collapsing.

That visual relationship is corroborated by running the statistical correlations...

The relationship is obvious and evident! In addition, we have been in a Goldilocks fantasy land for both interest rates and CRE for about 30 years. CRE culminated in the 2007 bubble pop, but was reblown by .gov policies and machinations. The same with rates. Ever hear of NEGATIVE interest rates where YOU have to PAY someone to LEND THEM MONEY!!!

So, BoomBustBloggers, where do YOU think rates are going to go from here? Up of Down???

Taped telephone recordings (from the bank's own systems) from inside doomed Anglo Irish Bank reveal for the first time how the bank's top executives lied to the Government about the true extent of losses at the institution.

... Anglo itself was within days of complete meltdown – and in the years ahead would eat up €30bn of taxpayer money. Mr Bowe speaks about how the State had been asked for €7bn to bail out Anglo – but Anglo's negotiators knew all along this was not enough to save the bank.

... The plan was that once the State began the flow of money, it would be unable to stop. Mr Bowe is asked by Mr Fitzgerald how they had come up with the figure of €7bn. He laughs as he is taped saying: "Just, as Drummer (then-CEO David Drumm) would say, 'picked it out of my arse'."

... Mr Bowe's comments in the audio recording reveal that Anglo's strategy was to lure the State in, leaving taxpayers with no choice but to continue to provide loans to "support their money".

... "If they (Central Bank) saw the enormity of it up front, they might decide they have a choice. You know what I mean?

"They might say the cost to the taxpayer is too high . . . if it doesn't look too big at the outset . . . if it looks big, big enough to be important, but not too big that it kind of spoils everything, then, then I think you have a chance. So I think it can creep up."

Mr Fitzgerald, the Director of Retail Banking, is heard saying: "Yeah. They've got skin in the game and that is the key."

... The recording also shows Mr Bowe and Mr Fitzgerald laughing as they say how there is no realistic chance of ever repaying the loans.

For the first time, taxpayers get an exclusive insight into the banking shenanigans that cost Ireland our sovereignty.

]]>reggie@boombustblog.com (Reggie Middleton)BoomBustBlogMon, 24 Jun 2013 20:12:13 +0000When Zero Is Just Not Enough: The End Of QEZIRP And The Beginning Of Rational Market Pricinghttp://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9107-when-zero-is-just-not-enough-the-end-of-qezirp-and-the-beginning-of-rational-market-pricing
http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9107-when-zero-is-just-not-enough-the-end-of-qezirp-and-the-beginning-of-rational-market-pricing

With rates spiking and equities dropping, all due to the long overdue realization that Bernanke can't goose the markest forever, I take this time to review my many warnings of this moment as it it approaches.

Reggie Middleton Featured in Property EU, one of Europe's leading real estate publications

AN inquiry is under way within Bank of Ireland's private banking division, as the bank's internal auditors investigate what have been described as "possible irregularities".

The Sunday Independent has learned that Bank of Ireland's auditors have been inside the division, which counts many of Ireland's most wealthy and powerful individuals among its clients, at various stages over the past six weeks, conducting what one source described as a "thorough examination" of its activities.

Hmmmm. Now, that's interesting. Six weeks ago would have been about two weeks after I dropped my bomb of a scorching missive on sheeple who are to this day, much too trusting of the banking system. That two weeks is just about the amount of time it would have taken a big corporation to act on the information that I levied (if it was in a rush). Wholly a coincidence, I'm sure!

The bank's audit team is seeking to establish if any of its private banking clients' affairs have been handled in any way improperly.

The bank's management is understood to be treating the matter "very seriously". Commenting on this, one well-placed source said: "The investigation isn't complete yet. It's difficult to say when it will be complete. We are obliged to follow due process before we come to any conclusions."

Asked if Bank of Ireland had brought in any third parties to assist with the investigation or if it had made contact with gardai even on a preliminary basis, the source said: "No, the matter is being dealt with internally and all appropriate procedures are being followed.

... The source stressed that clients of the division that is under investigation would be notified immediately in the event that the bank uncovered any evidence to show that their affairs had been inappropriately managed.

I have to be honest, I hate it when people ask me for free advice. After all, if my advice/opinion/knowledge was thought to be worth something, then people ought to act like it, no? Well, methinks one should make an exception to the rule this one time and offer some free advice to the "internal audit team" at the Bank of Ireland. I know, I know... Nobody asked me, but since they haven't bothered to bring in any third parties yet, why not invite myself and crash the party?

As you can see, there was a significant and material loss taken by ADR holders during the time in question at BoI. But, following the auspices of this story in the Independent, yet using our BoomBustBlog investigative resources, there's much more here than meets the eye. A document that I made available to professional/institutional subscribers details how the Bank of Ireland sought and received an exemption from SEC rule 102 of Regulation M (click here to brush up on your US securities law). In short, this exemption allowed the bank to literally trade in its own securities, provided it wouldn't abuse the privilege. See an excerpt below...

This letter worked literal wonders for the Bank of Ireland stock within days of being issued. Even more miraculous is the fact that it wasn't public information at the time yet the public somehow knew to bid the shares up by nearly 100%. Hmmmm! Coincidence, eh?

Even more damning is the fact that the alleged historical trading volume in the shares in question (a pertinent fact used as an argument to get the Reg M exemption in the first place) spiked by nearly 5X!!!

...Bank of Ireland Private Banking is, according to its website, "Ireland's largest and oldest private bank. The country's leading entrepreneurs, business leaders, professionals and families trust us to manage their wealth with discretion and integrity."

If the private banking client's capital was used to churn these shares, then.... Oh Boy~~~

Per Wikipedia: Market manipulation is a deliberate attempt to interfere with the free and fair operation of the market and create artificial, false or misleading appearances with respect to the price of, or market for a security, commodity or currency. Market manipulation is prohibited in the United States under Section 9(a)(2)[1] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and in Australia under Section s 1041A of the Corporations Act 2001. The Act defines market manipulation as transactions which create an artificial price or maintain an artificial price for a tradable security.

Examples

Churning: "When a trader places both buy and sell orders at about the same price. The increase in activity is intended to attract additional investors, and increase the price."

If the stock was churned, the price would have increased temporarily until the performance numbers of the loss making bank would have came to fore. But then again, what would management have to gain by manipulating the stock in such fashion. After all, bankers aren't incentivized or measured by share prices, bonuses, year and reviews, etc., right???

If you believe that the information above actually identifies a gross misrepresentation of fact, omission or outright fraud, simply contact the SEC and let them know that Reggie Middleton suggested they look into it. You can actually use this form to convey my message.

For the past two months I have been releasing heretofore unseen documentation, proof-backed allegations and logical assertions throwing light on what I view to be gross misrepresentations, attempts at financial reporting prestidigitation and what I consider to be outright fraud in the Irish and UK banking system. BoomBustBlog has been the only source of such information and except for a few outliers, the MSM has literally refused to run stories on this.

Alas, even though mainstream editors, producers and reporters are trying to ignore what the BoomBust has done, massive shock waves have shaken loose those at the very top of the power structure. Unfortunately, much of what is going down is beyond the ken of the hoi polloi due to the taboo nature of the most important message that I convey.

Remember what happened when I initially dropped the Irish bomb on the unsuspecting Irish public? The head of the Irish Central Bank Regulatory Authority unexpectantly resigned...

{youtube}7gwCdgmTttU{/youtube}

So, what happens when you bring the Fiery Sword of Economic Truth to the UK and Ireland???

{youtube}D47MbNquwF0{/youtube}

Here's the answer to that question in the form of another surprise (not) to all BoomBustBloggers. After my multiple expose's on RBS...

Royal Bank of Scotlandshares fell seven percent on Thursday after the surprise ousting of CEO Stephen Hester left investors questioning who would steer the part-nationalized bank through to an eventual privatization.

Isn't this just one helluva string of coincidences that as I uncover dirt and grime, we get these "unexpected" and "unforeseen" ousters and resignations days and weeks afterward. If I didn't know better, I'd think someone busted these guys doing something naughty... Nahh! Couldn't be!

I know more than a couple of UK taxpayers who'd much not rather pay Irish bad debts. I decided to rub a little salt in the UK wound by throwing some arithmetic illumination on the situation via an embedded Irish bad bank tax calculator...

The app below allows the UK Taxpayer to calculate for themselves exactly what their individual contribution (pro rata) is to the government bailout of RBS.

I've taken the liberty of pre-populating the input fields for you, but if you don't agree with the numbers then by all means insert your own!

Then there's still that Cyprus'd thingy...

While the inclusion of large savers in future bank bailouts is now widely accepted, significant differences still remain between member states.

While the new rules governing bank resolution were first intended to come into place in 2018, since the Cypriot bailout there have been calls from senior EU figures such as European Central Bank president Mario Draghi and EU economics affairs commissioner Olli Rehn to introduce the new regime as early as 2015.

The Irish presidency of the European Council is hoping to reach a common position by the end of next month.

The little app below calculates what return you should expect to receive to take on the risk of a potential 40% haircut. The second tab offers what recent Cyprus bank rates were. Do you see a disparity???

Almost a year ago, as the euro crisis raged, Europe’s leaders boldly pledged a union to break the dangerous link between indebted governments and ailing banking systems, where the troubles of one threatened to pull down the other. Yet the agreement that seems likely to emerge from a summit later this month will be one that does little to weaken this vicious link. If anything it may increase risks to stability instead of reducing them.

Almost everyone involved agrees that in theory a banking union ought to have three legs. The first is a single supervisor to write common rules and to enforce them uniformly. Next are the powers to “resolve” failed banks, which is a polite term for deciding who takes a hit; these powers also require a pot of money (or at least a promise to pay) to clean up the mess left by bust lenders and to inject capital into those that can get back on their feet. The third leg is a credible euro-wide guarantee on deposits to reassure savers that a euro in an Italian or Spanish bank is just as safe as one in a German or Dutch bank. National insurance schemes offer scant reassurance to savers when sovereigns are wobbly and insured deposits make up a big chunk of annual GDP (see chart).

This is how that document started off. Even if we were to disregard BNP's most serious liquidity and ALM mismatch issues, we still need to address the topic above. Now, if you were to employ the free BNP bank run models that I made available in the post "The BoomBustBlog BNP Paribas "Run On The Bank" Model Available for Download"" (click the link to download your own copy of the bank run model, whether your a simple BoomBustBlog follower or a paid subscriber) you would know that the odds are that BNP's bond portfolio would probably take a much bigger hit than that conservatively quoted above. Here I demonstrated what more realistic numbers would look like in said model... image008image008

To note page 9 of that very same document addresses how this train of thought can not only be accelerated, but taken much further...

So, how bad could this faux accounting thing be? You know, there were two American banks that abused this FAS 157 cum Topic 820 loophole as well. There names were Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. I warned my readers well ahead of time with them as well - well before anybody else apparently had a clue (Is this the Breaking of the Bear? and Is Lehman really a lemming in disguise?). Well, at least in the case of BNP, it's a potential tangible equity wipe out, or is it? On to page 10 of said subscription document...

Yo, watch those level 2s! Of course there is more to BNP besides overpriced, over leveraged sovereign debt, liquidity issues and ALM mismatch, and lying about stretching Topic 820 rules, but I think that's enough for right now. Is all of this already priced into the free falling stock? Are these the ingredients for a European bank run? I'll let you decide, but BoomBustBloggers Saw this coming midsummer when this stock was at $50. Those who wish to subscribe to my research and services should click here. Those who don't subscribe can still benefit from the chronology that led up to the BIG BNP short (at least those who have come across my research for the first time)...

A day after Credit Suisse killed the Chinese bank sector saying that the equity of virtually the entire space may be worthless if NPLs double, as they expect they will to about 10%, the Swiss bank proceeds to kill European banks next. Based on the latest farce out of Europe in the form of the third stress test, which is supposed to restore some confidence, it appears that what it will do is simply accelerate the flight out of everything bank related, but certainly out of anything RBS, Deutsche Bank, BNP, SocGen and Barclays related.

I'd like to add that I've ridiculed all of these stress tests, US and European, although the European stress tests were by far the biggest joke. Dexia passed with a grade of A (or so), and will be nationalized momentarily. 'Nuff said!

To wit: "In our estimation of what could be the “new EBA stress test” there would be 66 failures, with RBS, Deutsche Bank, and BNP needing the most capital – at €19bn, €14bn and €14bn respectively. Among the banks with the highest capital shortfalls,SocGen and Barclays would need roughly €13bn with Unicredit and Commerzbank respectively at €12bn and €11bn. In the figure below we present the stated results. We note RBS appears to be the most vulnerable although the company has said that the methodology, especially the calculation of trading income, is especially harsh for them, negatively impacting the results by c.80bps." Oops. Perhaps it is not too late for the EBA to back out of this latest process and say they were only kidding. And it gets even worse: "We present in this section an overview of the analysis which we published in our report ‘The lost decade’ – 15-Sep 2011. One of our conclusions was that the overall European banking sector is facing a €400bn capital shortfall which compares to a current market cap of €541bn." Said otherwise, we can now see why the FT reported yesterday that banks will be forced to go ahead and proceed with asset firesales: the mere thought of European banks raising new cash amounting to 75% of the entire industry's market cap, is beyond ridiculous. So good luck with those sales: just remember - he who sells first, sells best.

Judged against these three requirements, Europe’s new plan is a miserly one. Its outlines emerged in a joint paper released on May 30th by France and Germany. The minimalism of the paper suggests the summit will offer little more than the establishment of single supervisor and a promise to set up a vaguely defined “resolution mechanism”.

If a pot of money is pledged it will probably be a small fund raised through a tax on banks and without the backing of governments. If Europe’s bail-out fund, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), is referred to it is likely to be only as a last resort to recapitalise lenders after ailing countries have already bankrupted themselves standing behind their banks. A euro-wide deposit insurance fund is so controversial it isn’t polite to mention it.

...The legal challenges are also enormous. Each country in the euro has its own bankruptcy code. A change in the treaties governing the European Union would probably be needed to give a new resolution authority the power to seize bank assets and impose losses on creditors.

Events outside the negotiating room have also reshaped the scope of a banking union. The “bail-in” of Cypriot banks earlier this year dipped into the savings of uninsured depositors in order to recapitalise lenders. Repeating that tactic would risk deposit flight from peripheral banks and a sharp increase in banks’ funding costs. But rather than committing public funds to shore up banks elsewhere, some politicians would doubtless prefer to hit uninsured depositors again.

A strategy of incrementally moving towards a full banking union might have worked in normal times. Doing so in the middle of a crisis is risky. Over the coming year the ECB will have the unenviable task of assessing the health of the banks it is about to supervise. Its root-and-branch examination may well reveal gaping holes at a number of big banks. Yet without ready access to a pot of money to fill these holes, the ECB could be reluctant to force banks to come clean. “It is madness to expose capital shortfalls if you don’t know where new capital is going to come from,” says one bank supervisor.

"Over the coming year the ECB will have the unenviable task of assessing the health of the banks it is about to supervise. Its root-and-branch examination may well reveal gaping holes at a number of big banks. Yet without ready access to a pot of money to fill these holes, the ECB could be reluctant to force banks to come clean."

Madness, I tell you! Madness!!!

]]>reggie@boombustblog.com (Reggie Middleton)BoomBustBlogTue, 11 Jun 2013 10:44:36 +0000Taxation Without Representation: UK Taxpayers Learn From The Irish What US School Kids Get Taught In 3rd Gradehttp://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9094-taxation-without-representation-uk-taxpayers-learn-from-the-irish-what-us-school-kids-get-taught-in-3rd-grade
http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9094-taxation-without-representation-uk-taxpayers-learn-from-the-irish-what-us-school-kids-get-taught-in-3rd-grade

The phrase captures a sentiment central to the cause of the English Civil War, as articulated by John Hampden who said “what an English King has no right to demand, an English subject has a right to refuse” in the Ship money case.

... The British Parliament had controlled colonial trade and taxed imports and exports since 1660.[1] By the 1760s, the Americans were being deprived of a historic right.[2] The English Bill of Rights 1689 had forbidden the imposition of taxes without the consent of Parliament. Since the colonists had no representation in Parliament, the taxes violated the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen.

...The phrase had been used for more than a generation in Ireland.[7][8] By 1765, the term was in use in Boston, and local politician James Otis was most famously associated with the phrase, "taxation without representation is tyranny."[9] In the course of the Revolutionary era (1750-1783), many arguments seeking to resolve the dispute surrounding Parliamentary sovereignty, self-governance, taxation, and the constitutional rights of 'commoners' to representation were pursued.[10]

Why go through this US grade school history lesson? Well, UK taxpayers have been paying substantial taxes to essentially bail out an Irish bank with no say so in how said bank is operated. As a matter of fact, they don't even know the extent of said bank's indebtedness despite paying a ton of money to bail it out. RBS investors have taken material losses due to this very same bank. Both of these parties went without adequate disclosure or... "representation". A couple of months ago I penned a piece titled "I Illustrate How The Irish Banking Cancer Spreads To The UK Taxpayer And Metastasizes Through US Markets!" wherein the Royal Bank of Scotland's failure to adequately report the full (and quite excessive, in my opinion) liabilities of its ill-fated acquisition, Ulster Bank of Ireland. Ulster Bank pumped massive losses into RBS, who in turn neared collapsed and required a massive bailout by the UK taxpayer (billions of pounds massive), who still owns 81% of this sick creature as I type this missive. Those losses were generated by an Irish bank in Ireland, but paid by UK citizens, and the losses were materially understated in my opinion for Ulster Bank was/is much less solvent than RBS is letting on through its US SEC reporting, having encumbered all of its ECB eligible assets available for lending... ALL OF ITS ASSETS! See "I Illustrate How The Irish Banking Cancer Spreads To The UK Taxpayer And Metastasizes Through US Markets!" for complete details, it's a doozy!

I know more than a couple of UK taxpayers who'd much not rather pay Irish bad debts. I decided to rub a little salt in the UK wound by throwing some arithmetic illumination on the situation via an embedded Irish bad bank tax calculator...

The app below allows the UK Taxpayer to calculate for themselves exactly what their individual contribution (pro rata) is to the government bailout of RBS.

I've taken the liberty of pre-populating the input fields for you, but if you don't agree with the numbers then by all means insert your own!

A “radical” restructuring of Royal Bank of Scotland, which is largely owned by the UK taxpayer, could see it transfer control of its Irish operation, Ulster Bank, to the Irish government.

The future of RBS is currently being considered by the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, and a draft report from the commission called for the split of RBS into a good bank and a bad bank.

However, a speculative report from BBC business editor Robert Peston has suggested that “another, more radical option is also being assessed by the Treasury”.

This would involve somehow removing Ulster Bank from RBS. The bank has been one of the worst performing parts of the group, with losses of £1 billion in 2012.

Mr Peston said that one idea raised is to “transfer Ulster Bank into the arms and ownership of the Irish government”, by swapping all or part of the bank for the British loans and investments currently owned by Ireland’s “bad bank”, the National Asset Management Agency (Nama).

Hmmm... That's interesting, trading trash for garbage!

]]>reggie@boombustblog.com (Reggie Middleton)BoomBustBlogWed, 05 Jun 2013 13:11:10 +0000Who is RBS? Royal BS... or the Royal Bank of Scotlandhttp://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9084-who-is-rbs?-royal-bull-sh-or-the-royal-bank-of-scotland
http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9084-who-is-rbs?-royal-bull-sh-or-the-royal-bank-of-scotland

Scotland is making a move for independence from the UK as a sovereign nation. Such an event is bound to be rife with political motivations and ramifications that I'm no where near qualified to gauge or judge. Yet, there is one thing that I can comment on with conviction, and that is the risks that abound in the banking system. You see, with so many political motivations running in several directions, the truth (or even a facsimile of it) will be hard to come by in such a situation, but I believe I can ferret out a nugget or two. Here are a few snippets from an article ran on CNBCcom today: Scotland Independence Could Lead to Cyprus-Style Banking Crisis

An independent Scotland is at risk of a Cyprus-style banking crisis, as its banking sector would be "exceptionally large" compared to the size of its economy, a U.K. government report has said.

"An independent Scotland would have an exceptionally large banking sector compared to the size of its economy - with banking assets of more than 1250 percent of Scottish [gross domestic product] - making it more vulnerable to financial shocks and the volatility of the sector," the Treasury report said on Monday.

The report pointed out Scotland's banking exposure would dwarf that of Iceland and Cyprus, two countries that faced severe banking collapses in recent years. Iceland's banks, for example, had assets equivalent to 880 per cent of GDP, while Cyprus, which faced a banking crisis in March, had total banking assets of around 700 per cent of GDP.

"At the end of September 2012, the two largest banks – the Cyprus Popular Bank and Bank of Cyprus – had assets in the region of 210 per cent and 175 per cent of Cyprus's GDP respectively."

"It is worth noting that, if Scotland became independent, its banking sector would be similarly concentrated (with two large players, Bank of Scotland and Royal Bank of Scotland and a number of smaller firms), and that an independent Scotland's domestic banking sector would be likely to be significantly larger than that of Cyprus (assuming no change to firms' domicile arrangements)."

While there's not a single doubt in my mind that this so-called research paper has distinct political ulterior motives at it heart, a fact is still a fact nonetheless. RBS is still a problem in terms of systemic risk. On Thursday, 11 April 2013 I penned, I Illustrate How The Irish Banking Cancer Spreads To The UK Taxpayer And Metastasizes Through US Markets! wherein I clearly illustrated that RBS is materially understating its liabilities AND even went so far as to include links to the SEC and the UK banking regulator so that US/UK taxpayers and investors can notify our erstwhile regulator(s) to the potential of financial shenanigans. The root of the problem is that RBS has materially under-reported its liabilities (in my oh so humble opinion.) Those that stress tested RBS (the same erstwhile professionals that allowed the Irish banks to pass their stress tests 3 months before they started collapsing) apparently overlooked humongous swaths of liabilities. The charge documents referred to in the aforelinked article are definitively not apparent in the recent bank stress testing’ conducted by the European Banking Authority, at least not in the summary results that the EBA have made available. For those who are still skeptical, I beg thee reference the RBS Stress Test download. I presented ample evidence directly in my previous articles, to wit:

What happened behind closed doors?

Ulster Bank gave a first floating charge in favor of the Central Bank of Ireland (an arm of the European Central Bank) and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland. U.S. investors would have had to rely on the contents of The Royal Bank of Scotland's 2008 Annual Accounts which apparently (in my opinion) concealed the existence of the CRO registered charges to the Central Bank of Ireland.

I even included a lawsuit filed in which investors apparently go the message, they just didn't have access to the analyst that I proffered...

To give the prospective Scottish taxpayer a clue as to what surprises may lurk beneath, I post this tidbit from the afore-linked article...

The app below allows the UK Taxpayer to calculate for themselves exactly what their individual contribution (pro rata) is to the government bailout of RBS.

I've taken the liberty of pre-populating the input fields for you, but if you don't agree with the numbers then by all means insert your own!

]]>reggie@boombustblog.com (Reggie Middleton)BoomBustBlogMon, 20 May 2013 09:48:01 +0000Which Banks Are We Looking At To Shop For Assets?http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9079-which-banks-are-we-looking-at-to-shop-for-assets?
http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9079-which-banks-are-we-looking-at-to-shop-for-assets?

In our last report on European Bank Deleveraging in May last year, we had highlighted that the European Banks would be forced to shrink their balance sheet by way of asset-sale, reduction in lending and scale-back of their retail business. We had also mentioned why banks would be required to deleverage, and to what extent European banks have planned their asset sale categorized by:

(1) Banking Activities (Investment banking, Corporate, Retail)

(2) Asset Category (Banking, Insurance, Asset Management, etc), and

(3) Location (Asia, Latin America, EU and North America)

The Global Financial Stability Report (GFSR) released by IMF (International Monetary Fund) in April 2012 had estimated that EU banks (a sample of 58 banks in IMF GFSR April 2012) would reduce assets by $2.6 trillion (under the base policies scenario) over the period from Q3 2011 to Q4 2013 (10 quarter estimate).

Actual data for 5 quarters ending Q2 2012 shows that a number of euro area banks have taken steps in the direction to deleverage although the pace of effort has somewhat slowed down after Q1 2012 due to ECB’s efforts to relieve funding pressure on banks. The assets of the sample banks fell by around $600 million from Q2 2011 to Q2 2012 (source: IMF’s GFSR October 2012 report). The period Q4 2011 accounted for a major share of the above decline.

Which banks actively initiated deleveraging?

A number of large European banks decreased their exposure during Q4 2011 and Q1 2012. The decline was notably the highest in the peripheral euro area, around 12% in Q4 2011 and Q1 2012 combined, compared to the decline in other regions, namely other advanced regions in Europe, emerging Europe, emerging Asia, Latin America and other parts of the world. The chart below shows the percentage decline in exposure of European banks by regions in Q4 2011 and Q1 2012.

Hey, ninety days or so later... guess what?

These banks are likely to need a recap, a recap that will likely get a sloppy and ugly. I visited the UAE this time last year and noticed that would be an excellent source of capital for a shopping spree based upon the EU Bank deleveraging. It prompted me to detail my thoughts to subscribers for I was preparing to raise capital.

{youtube}LdGdyEQYoe8{/youtube}

This is just a portion of the report released (subscribers can find the full report in the Global Macro Section of the downloads area). One page in particular was particularly prescient, page 9... Remember what happened two months ago before you read this and be sure to notice the dates on the embedded documents... Bank deleveraging is REAL!!!

I have updated versions of this distressed asset acquisistion document which I will post for institutional subscribers later on in the day. Any institutions or high net worth individuals interested in my plans should feel free to contact me.

Yesterday, at the press briefing to discuss the Central Bank’s 2012 annual report, Honohan matter-of-factly told us that the Irish banks would need more funding before 2019 due to changes in capital reporting requirements imposed by the new Basel III accord.

The transition period for these changes to be implemented by banks in the EU is January 2019.

There were more than a few eyebrows raised at this frank admission.

Honohan’s statement is in stark contrast to those of the various Irish-owned banks –AIB, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB. In public at least, the banks have maintained that they are adequately capitalised and that they do not envisage having to raise additional capital to bolster their ratios.

Mr Honohan said the Central Bank was still working towards carrying out stress tests on the banks at the latter part of the year. By 2019, the banks will need more capital under international regulations.

"In an ideal situation, that capital will come from private investors, as is happening all over Europe, all over the world, where bank capital is being pushed up through the market system," he said.

The Bank of Ireland

In the 2008 Annual Accounts (Irish version of Annual Report) of Bank of Ireland (see attached, page 178) it states the bank gave a first floating charge in favor of the Central Bank of Ireland (an arm of the European Central Bank) and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland over the Banks ‘right, title, interest, benefit, present and future, in and to certain segregated securities listed in an Eligible Securities schedule.’

Fact: The BoI 2008 Irish accounts (~annual report) refer to the charges in their Disclosure Section (see attached page from 2008 accounts) where they describe the charge as being over ‘certain segregated securities.’

Of paramount importance for US investors and regulators, there is an absolute omission of this information in the Bank of Ireland SEC 20F returns for 2008.

However, banks would need capital over the medium term to comply with Basel III capital requirements by 2019. It is hoped the banks will be able to raise this from private investors, he added. He hoped Ireland would not need the help of the ECB’s outright monetary transaction programme when it exits the bailout programme. However, if it met certain criteria, then it would be able to use the facility.

The Bank of Ireland 2008 Irish Annual Accounts refer to the charges in their Disclosure Section (see attached page from 2008 accounts) where they describe the charge as being over ‘certain segregated securities,’ but no mention of ‘right, title, interest, benefit, present and future, in and to certain segregated securities listed in an EligibleSecurities schedule.’

There is also no mention of any information related to this floating charge in the Bank of Ireland SEC 20F returns for 2008.

It appears that this floating charge was not disclosed at the time of the stress testing of the bank conducted by the European Banking Authority.

Now of course, to constitute fraud there has to be a loss on the part of the one being defrauded or a gain on the part of the one being defrauded - at least according to Wikipedia. Otherwise, it would be a hoax. That's the Irish banking system, and not this bank in particular. So...

image003

If you believe that the information above actually identifies a gross misrepresentation of fact, omission or outright fraud, simply contact the SEC and let them know that Reggie Middleton suggested they look into it. You can actually use this form to convey my message.

Remember, extreme wealth concentrates, so you don't have to... Coming from a "Cyprus'd" bank near you!

I was recently alerted to an article in Business Insider regarding a Twitter battle between Nasim Taleb and fellow academics, analysts and financial journalists. What caught my attention was:

Taleb called out the academics for charlatans, which I felt was quite bold.

Two, I agree with him

One of the academics, who presided over the US bubble at the Fed AND the Irish banking bubble at the Central Bank of Ireland is also the guy whose proclamations are the antithesis of my recent Irish banking research, see

As you can see, nobody wanted to chat with me, so the following day (this morning), I decided to force the issue with a barage of facts. You know how facts tend to get in the way of a good Twitter flame war, don't you?

In relation to BoI; the CEO Richie Boucher in the Irish High Court on 5th of October 2012 swore on affidavit that BoI had assets of €155 billion.

His statement appears to ignore the existence of the charges that were clearly delineated and illustrated in my previous post - What Should The US Do If One Of The Biggest Banks In Ireland Blatantly Defrauded US Investors?Below is a sworn copy of the affidavit for Richie Boucher, the CEO of Bank of Ireland. This relates to reducing the Banks Regulatory capital by almost 4 Billion Euro which was shared amongst its preferential shareholders – at the expense of the common shareholders.

You will see he states that the bank has assets of almost 155 Billion Euro. The bank reported losses of 2.1 Billion euro last week.

Although he states that the bank has assets of almost 155 Billion Euro, it recently reported losses of 2.1 Billion euro, which of course materially reduces capital. This loss had to be visible from within the bank for Citibank (amongst other analysts) had bearish views on the company. I doubt Citi knew something that the bank management didn't!

This bid to raise capital for dividend distribution in the face of apparent and expected losses (Citibank had a bearish outlook on the bank’s operations, as did the CEO himself) appears to fly in the face of prudent operation designed to keep the bank as an ongoing concern. Further investigation supports reason to question this action.

The institutional bank investor Wilbur Ross bought preferred shares of BoI, and benefitted from a windfall payout as BoI successfully petitioned to reduce its regulatory share capital amongst current and impending losses that it was confident it would be taking.

Wilbur Ross, et. al. made off like bandits, with the Bank of Ireland common people shareholders left holding the bag with millions in losses. We calculate Mr. Ross pocketed over $600 million dollars for this 5 month or so trade - and with relatively very little out of pocket expense or risk. He still owns the preference shares, after all - and still got the cash as well! Touche' mister Ross, Touche'. As for the common shareholders nursing that 2.1 billion euro (roughly 4.5B dollar) losse, I say the same to you that the big US bankers said to their clients during the 2008 debacle - Muppets! See Goldman's take on Muppetology to get a firmer grasp on what I mean and how the US banks consider nearly all taxpayers muppets.

I calculate the Bank of Ireland taking even more aggressive losses in the future. Why? Failure to mark to market means Irish banks are carrying loans whose true saleable value are roughly 27% of book value. This literally means insolvency for many – and that’s without the recognition of the various charge issues illustrated within. I have documentation to back this up as well and will delve into it in a future post. In the meantime, review my previous posts on the topic or subscribe to download some of the speficic charge documents contained in the posts herein.

]]>reggie@boombustblog.com (Reggie Middleton)BoomBustBlogWed, 24 Apr 2013 17:20:03 +0000As Forewarned, The Irish Savers Have Just Been "Cyprus'd", And There's MUCH MORE "Cyprusing" To Comehttp://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9067-as-forewarned-the-irish-savers-have-been-cyprusd-and-theres-much-more-cyprusing-to-come
http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9067-as-forewarned-the-irish-savers-have-been-cyprusd-and-theres-much-more-cyprusing-to-come

This is likely to be the biggest financial story of the month, a story that's bigger than Cyprus, and a story that you're not going to see in American mainstream media - not by a long shot. Let's take this from the top, for BoomBustBloggers were warned weeks in advanced. On Wednesday, 27 March 2013 I published EU Bank Depositors: Your Mattress Is Starting To Look Awfully Attractive - Bank Risk, Reward & Compensation wherein I explained that the situation of extreme loss faced by Cyprus bank depositors, savers and bondholders will not be a unique story - as excerpted:

The deposit accounts that you were getting just a few hundred basis points for have developed:

The little app below calculates what return you should expect to receive to take on the risk of a potential 40% haircut. The second tab offers what recent Cyprus bank rates were. Do you see a disparity???

The Banks Are Bigger Than Many of the Sovereigns

Now, the "Overbanked" article was posted back in 2010. That's right, I warned about the two Irish banks listed in the chart above THREE YEARS ago, You've had plenty of time to mover your money out! Speaking of those Irish banks, I warned the Irish again a few weeks ago as well - with specificity - in Global Banking Crisis - How & Why YOU Will Get "Cyprus'd" As This Bank Scrambled For Capital!!! Here, I focused on Anglo Irish, already nationalized and being wound down. I warned that there will be unhappy returns, if there would be any, just like Cyprus - as excerpted:

First Off Let's Make Bank Collapse Real...

To begin with, let's make this Cyprus thing real, by showing a live example of what happens when to a real small business that had the gall to bank with Laikie Bank, from the Bitcoin forum I excerpt a post that puts things into perspective, re: bank account confiscation:

As you can see, this is actually MUCH WORSE than the deal the Cypriots got. These Irish pensioners are facing a total wipeout - 100% LOSS!!!

The ECB has gagged the Government from releasing any information in relation to the liquidation of the former Anglo Irish bank, IBRC. A senior official in the Department of Finance told the Irish Examiner they were under strict instructions from the ECB not to release any details to the public. “What they [ECB] have said from an early stage is that if there is any release, at all, then all negotiations are off. They do not want to discuss this in any forum, other than that of a member state and the ECB council,” he said. The department has received about 16 freedom of information requests in relation to the IBRC liquidation and is now considering adopting a policy position that would allow it to refuse all applications for the release of information.

Sinn Féin finance spokesman Pearse Doherty said the decision to liquidate IBRC was one of the biggest ever made by the State and he was concerned certain firms may have used insider information to secure payments. “The minister has refused several requests from me for information pertaining to the weeks and months before the event, specifically concerning whether certain sources in the know used confidential information to fast-track invoices in anticipation of liquidation.

So there you have it. Unless you've been hearing a lot about Irish bank collapse lately, it seems if you don't hear it from Reggie Middleton and BoomBustBlog, you're probably not going to hear it at all - so says the powers that be.

It's not just Anglo Irish Bank, either. I've warned about several other Irish banks. Here's another one I feel likely to give Irish savers a nasty surprise...

{youtube}K7LhFY_06RY{/youtube}

You see, the banks can get away with this fleecing because the common person doesn't get a hold of my information and analysis very often, at least not until it's too late. But...... Guess what happened in the Irish mainstream media over the weekend, in the Irish Sun, the most popular rag on the most popular day....

]]>reggie@boombustblog.com (Reggie Middleton)BoomBustBlogMon, 22 Apr 2013 09:17:58 +0000What Should The US Do If One Of The Biggest Banks In Ireland Blatantly Defrauded US Investors?http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9066-what-should-the-us-do-if-one-of-the-biggest-banks-in-ireland-blatantly-defrauded-us-investors?
http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9066-what-should-the-us-do-if-one-of-the-biggest-banks-in-ireland-blatantly-defrauded-us-investors?

Since I'm not a securities attorney, let's get a basic understanding of where I'm basing my allegation - after all, I could definitely be wrong as a layman. From Wikipedia:

Securities fraud, also known as stock fraud and investment fraud, is a deceptive practice in the stock or commodities markets that induces investors to make purchase or sale decisions on the basis of false information, frequently resulting in losses, in violation of securities laws.[1] Offers of risky investment opportunities to unsophisticated investors who are unable to evaluate risk adequately and cannot afford loss of capital is a central problem.[2][3]

Characteristics of victims and perpetrators

Any investor can become a victim, but persons aged fifty years or older are most often victimized, whether as direct purchasers in securities or indirect purchasers through pension funds. Not only do investors lose but so can creditors, taxing authorities, and employees.

Potential perpetrators of securities fraud within a publicly traded firm include any dishonest official within the company who has access to the payroll or financial reports that can be manipulated to:

overstate assets

overstate revenues

understate costs

understate liabilities

Enron Corporation[27] exemplifies all four tendencies, and its failure demonstrates the extreme dangers of a culture of corruption within a publicly traded corporation. The rarity of such spectacular failures of a corporation from securities fraud attests to the general reliability of most executives and boards of large corporations.

So, with that layman's understanding of what securities fraud is (along with my emphasis added), let's move on.

The Bank of Ireland

In the 2008 Annual Accounts (Irish version of Annual Report) of Bank of Ireland (see attached, page 178) it states the bank gave a first floating charge in favor of the Central Bank of Ireland (an arm of the European Central Bank) and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland over the Banks ‘right, title, interest, benefit, present and future, in and to certain segregated securities listed in an Eligible Securities schedule.’

Fact: The BoI 2008 Irish accounts (~annual report) refer to the charges in their Disclosure Section (see attached page from 2008 accounts) where they describe the charge as being over ‘certain segregated securities.’

Of paramount importance for US investors and regulators, there is an absolute omission of this information in the Bank of Ireland SEC 20F returns for 2008.

Other Discrepancies In Disclosure

The Bank of Ireland 2008 Irish Annual Accounts refer to the charges in their Disclosure Section (see attached page from 2008 accounts) where they describe the charge as being over ‘certain segregated securities,’ but no mention of ‘right, title, interest, benefit, present and future, in and to certain segregated securities listed in an EligibleSecurities schedule.’

There is also no mention of any information related to this floating charge in the Bank of Ireland SEC 20F returns for 2008.

It appears that this floating charge was not disclosed at the time of the stress testing of the bank conducted by the European Banking Authority.

Now of course, to constitute fraud there has to be a loss on the part of the one being defrauded or a gain on the part of the one being defrauded - at least according to Wikipedia. Otherwise, it would be a hoax. That's the Irish banking system, and not this bank in particular. So...

If you believe that the information above actually identifies a gross misrepresentation of fact, omission or outright fraud, simply contact the SEC and let them know that Reggie Middleton suggested they look into it. You can actually use this form to convey my message.

Remember, extreme wealth concentrates, so you don't have to... Coming from a "Cyprus'd" bank near you!

]]>reggie@boombustblog.com (Reggie Middleton)BoomBustBlogWed, 17 Apr 2013 15:26:11 +0000If I Provide Proof That The Entire Irish Banking System Is A Sham, Does It Set Up A Much Needed System Reboot? Let's Go For It...http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9063-averting-total-collapse-in-the-irish-banking-system-has-not-yet-succeeded-not-by-a-long-shot
http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9063-averting-total-collapse-in-the-irish-banking-system-has-not-yet-succeeded-not-by-a-long-shot

Entering my third week of publicizing my research into what I see as the potential collapse of the Irish banking system, it is about time to bring the series to a close. Before I do, though, there are a couple of loose ends that need tightening up. One is the assertion that the points that I have made are sensationalist. Anyone who has objectively read the articles I put forth cannot be objective themselves and come to a "sensationalist" conclusion. Secondly, there appears to be some who believe the many charges that I proffered as evidence are not actually evidence of a potentially nefarious plot to collude or misrepresent. Well, I believe the case of misrepresentation was made beyond a shadow of a reasonable doubt in Are You About To Get Cyprus'd in Ireland…

For those of you who actually think it's acceptable for large, international banks to have to mortgage their entire balance sheets, or the vast amount of their securities and liquid asset holdings to essentially obtain access to what essentially is a cross-border, real time checking account (Target 2), I have this fabulous bridge to sell you in Brooklyn... Real cheap!

Let's examine the argument that the multiple charges were entered by various large banks for the legitimate purpose of facilitating access to Target 2, and not an emergency dash for liquidity funding from the ECB.

First, as excerpted from Wikipedia, a description of how Target 2 operates in terms of collateral:

Liquidity management in TARGET2

The availability and cost of liquidity are two crucial issues for the smooth processing of payments in RTGS systems.

The cost or liquidity is the pertinent issue here. The liquidity "allegedly" sought by the Irish banks is EXTREMELY expensive for it calls for them to leverage/encumber/pledge practically their entire tradable balance sheet. Contrast this with the US Fedwire, were reserves are put up. Yes, reserves, not ALL of central bank lending-eligible securities AND the liquid payment accounts. One cannot practically classify the Irish set-up as a reserve since it is practically everything that the bank has sans plant, equipment and nigh worthless goodwill. Fedwire is the largest system of it's type in existence, yet it requires less collateralization than it's smaller brethren in Europe, Target 2? Either everybody in Europe knows you can't trust European banks or Ireland was given a back door bailout through the Target 2 collateralization system. No matter which way you look at it (both are probably true), it's not positive! Now, back to the Wikipedia write up on Target 2...

In TARGET2, liquidity can be managed very flexibly and is available at low cost since fully remunerated minimum reserves – which credit institutions are required to hold with their central bank – can be used in full for settlement purposes during the day. The averaging provisions applied to minimum reserves allow banks to be flexible in their end-of-day liquidity management. The overnight lending and deposit facilities also allow for continuous lliquidity management decisions. The Eurosystem provides intraday credit. This credit must be fully collateralised and no interest is charged. However, all Eurosystem credit must be fully collateralised, i.e. secured by other assets.

So, now that we've established that the Irish banks have applied for, and received credit in exchange for pledging practically their entire securities and liquid assets portfolio, it is in no way debatable that these banks a) were (and are still, currently) leveraged to the max and b) tied up all of their assets with a pledge of collateralization to (allegedly) back up participation in this payment system. Back to Wikipedia...

The range of eligible collateral is very wide.

This is to be read as the quality, saleability and marketability of much of the collateral varies greatly - with much of it being worth considerably less than the claim against which it was pledged...

Assets eligible for monetary policy purposes are also eligible for intraday credit. Under Eurosystem rules, credit can only be granted by the national central bank of the Member State where the participant is established...

I suspect what you are looking at Reggie is not really an issue for the bank's capital. It looks to me like the ECB is securing itself against the risk that a bank won't voluntarily return a mistaken or fraudulent transfer of funds via Target2. I think in order to participate in Target2, the bank has to contractually give the ECB the right to seize and sell its assets, if that's what it takes to retrieve a mistaken or fraudulent transfer of funds.

This is what reserves are for. By definition, reserves are supposed to be a fractional amount of an entity's holdings to secure against a loss. These Irish banks aren't putting up fractional reserves, they're putting up their entire business. Imagine if you went to a bank to apply for a checking account with real time clearing and a condition of you getting said account was for your to mortgage your house, all of your stocks and bonds, and any other bank accounts. Sounds a bit fishy when put that way, doesn't it?

An amount of readily marketable assets are put up as collateral against the risk described above. If a bank has to put its entire business (after all, a bank's business is money and securities, so these banks put up all of their money and securities) up as a reserve just to essentially participate in a payment system, then it most assuredly...

Tells you something about the level of trust among Europeans. You might want to check other Eurozone banks with US listings and see if all of them don't have this exact same charge filed with the SEC. My guess is they all do.

Um, no they don't. That was the basis of my claim of misrepresentation and potential fraud. See

At first I thought it might be related to the refinancing and emergency liquidity assistance loans AIB has outstanding from the Irish central bank. Collateral is pledged for those which the ICB could sell if it decides not to roll over the funding and AIB doesn't repay. But the reference to Target2 would make no sense if this were about collateral posted to the ICB.

That said AIB is indeed still a mess for a lot of other reasons.

Actually, AIB is a mess for this reason AND many other reasons as well. The inclusion of charges for the purposes of Target 2 is likely a sham. The Irish banks were dead broke, and without a printing press to manufacture funny munny like we do here in the states. They were fresh out of eligible collateral to pledge to the ECB for more emergency loans. Here's evidence that the Irish charge system was not only unique, but not necessary for the purposes of using Target 2 as an excuse to access emergency funding.

As you can see, Ireland is unique among ALL countries in the EMU in that it, and only it, uses charges to secure access funding. But of course it's just a coincidence, right?!

Okay, let's suppose I'm full of sh1t and have made all of this up as some sort of conspiracy theory. After, it's all just circumstantial evidence, right (albeit an awful lot of it). The charges that I presented in my various articles (see the reference list below) did say that they were for the purposes of Target 2 and we all know banks would never, ever, ever lie, right? Ha! That's funny, even when I just type it!

Below, please find an all-encompassing charge document from the Bank of Scotland (Ireland) in favor to the Irish Central Bank. The annotations are self explanatory, and keep in mind the amount secured (practically everything) and the amount pledged (practically everything). After you finish reading through the document, let me know in the comment section below if you can determine why the charge was issued...

So, here we have a comprehensive charge, all-inclusive, not referencing Target 2 in any way whatsoever, filed on the exact same date as EVERY major bank in Ireland - during the middle of the biggest banking crisis Ireland has ever had. Oh, and by the way... this charge or any reference hereto, is nowhere to be found in the company's reporting to its regulators and/or investors - at least as far as I could determine. Hmmmm... Of course, these banks are healthy. Nothing to see here, move on and continue with your daily dose of state-sanctioned, mainstream media piped, independent thought numbing disinformation and propaganda.

Remember, extreme wealth concentrates, so you don't have to... Coming from a "Cyprus'd" bank near you!

Late last week I posted Allegations Of Big Irish Banks Operating Without A License wherein a reader detailed his detailing with AIB and alleged illegal (under Irish law) dealings with the bank. In the article, I asked for comments or criticism since that matter is outside of our expertise and wasn't confirmed. I received several emails on the topic rather quickly. Below is one of the more interesting ones. I find it amazing that AIB is aware of information like this floating around and has not responded with a rebuttal. If the information is accurate, it literally shames the Irish banking regulatory body and press. If it is inaccurate, then AIB should simply issue clarification.

Hi Reggie,

Attached and below a email from Aib Kathleen Clifford she is the assistant to Aib’s risk director.

The licence has correct company number but Aib Limited was restructured into Aib plc 1982 and doesn’t have any Government or Central Bank stamp?

Below are some the Irish criminal laws breached by AIB plc

Also their ability to trade outside Ireland is dependent on them having a Ratified Irish licence therefore their USA and Eu operations may not be legal.

False claims in performances False representation Misrepresentation to Central BankFraudulent application or use Concealing facts disclosed by documentsSuppression of documents False statements to shareholdersFalsification of Financial records Liability of officers in respect to financial records Furnishing false information Operating a Financial institution with out a valid Banking Licence

Since I started my series on the Irish banks, there's been an outpouring of sympathizers, empathizers, consultants and analysts who have joined in to contribute information, data and insight to the efforts. Below is a contribution from a reader on his experience with AIB (see Global Banking Crisis - How & Why YOU Will Get "Cyprus'd" and As If On Cue, BoomBustBlog Shenanigan...). I have not verified the information contained herein, nor do I endorse it or it author. It is presented here for information purposes only.

The premise for my allegations came after a newspaper article was published on the 22nd of April 2012; Judge Mc Govern gave possession of my family home to AIB. The article in the Sunday Independent outlined the loss of my two brothers and mum and business. I asked publically for help and information, the response was overwhelming, one report was from an insider in the AIB who directed me to the Annual Banking Licence application form issued by the Central bank under the 1941-1989 Acts, which all Irish banks and international Banks trading in Ireland require. It became instantly clear that the bank had committed numerous criminal Acts in obtaining their Banking licence, as my statement to An Garda (Irish Police) shows below.

I immediately investigated the AIB financial records 2006-2009 and identified stark anomalies and omitions, all contrary to company law, but more important contrary to their legislative obligations in the renewal of the Banking Licence. So I added that in my appeal affidavits in the high courts of Ireland that the AIB had no locus standi (can send affidavits dated from 29th of June 212) finally on the 21st of January some eleven weeks ago Judge Dunne directed me to report to police. I also sought Sine Fein to put by way of parliamentary question to Minister Michael Noonan the issue of illegality of banking Licences, Michael Noonan went as far as accepting that the IBRC had no valid Banking licence (which is a criminal Act) that was published in the Nama report.

____________________________________________________________

I Thomas Darcy an Irish citizen aged eighteen years and older of 21 Myra Manor Kinsealy Co Dublin, Make this Statement of facts upon which I believe to be the truth.

I state the AIB plc as registered on the 21st of May 1997 in the companies office and holding themselves as conducting or being willing to conduct the business of banking in the Irish state subject to the statute law and regulations imposed by Central Bank of Ireland Acts of 1941-1989 and Company laws of 1963-2010 and the laws of this Irish state operated a Financial Institution for the periods between 2006- 2007-2008-2009 in contravention of the said laws. I state the AIB plc operated without a perfected Banking Licence in contravention of the Central Bank Acts of 1941-1989 and further state the AIB plc on renewal of its legislated Annual Banking Licence with intent materially concealed and dishonestly omitted facts by false and misrepresentation in which to obtain said Banking licence.I state the AIB plc contravened its legislated obligation to deposit securities to the Central Bank of Ireland in respect to its loan to deposit ratios and liquidity ratios under the Central Bank Acts of 1941-1989 on renewal of its Banking licence in accordance with statute law. I state the AIB plc with intent criminally ignored its mandatory obligation to inform the Central Bank of Ireland of Material facts and changes to its status and exposure as a Financial Institution as set forth in the Central Bank Acts of 1941-1989.I state the omission of the aforementioned legislated securities and material changes were not reflected in the annual financial records of 2006-2007-2008-2009 by the AIB plc.I state the AIB plc with intent contravened Company Law of the Irish State by omitting and concealing its mandatory obligations to produce a True annual financial reflection of its status. I state the AIB plc contravened its Memorandum and Articles of Association under Company law and statute law by issuing a false and misleading set of financial records to its shareholders for the periods of 2006-2007-2008-2009. I state the AIB plc was required by statute law to inform its shareholders of all material changes and exposures to the status of the company as required by law and with intent failed to do so. I seek An Garda Siochana to enforce the laws of this country as set forth in our enacted Constitution dated the 1st of July 1937 and bring criminal charges against the AIB plc its Directors and agents for the breaches and violations of the laws of this state.

US retail investors and financial media tend to be a little... well... US-centric. They tend to ignore a lot of international happenings even though these events can, and often do, have a direct impact on the immediate US financial situation. I have ranted, raved, preached and prognosticated on the interconnectedness, and the inherent risks therein, of the global banking system. From my highly analytical ravings on Bear Stearns (pre-bust Is this the Breaking of the Bear?) to my more free form rants on Lehman (pre-bust Is Lehman really a lemming in disguise?), I think I have proven that being the lone voice in the investment wilderness is not necessarily an indicator of that voice being wrong. See Who is Reggie Middleton? for more on that topic. For now, let's continue where we left off in "Ireland, You May Very Well Be Bust & I Make No Apologies For What I'm About To Show You" wherein I'm about to clearly demonstrate how contagion easily traipsed through geographic borders from Ireland to the UK to the US, and how this big bank seemingly omitted the evidence of such.

Note to professional and institutional subscribers: Please download the supporting documents for this report from BoomBustBlog’s subscription archive and depository - Ulster Bank/RBS Supporting Charge Documents. This file contains several hundred pages of documentation to support the assertions and allegations contained in this report (click here to subscribe).

Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd, has charges registered (see Supporting Charge Documents) with the Irish Companies Registration Office (CRO). The bank gave a first floating charge in favour of the Central Bank of Ireland (an arm of the European Central Bank) and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland encompassing “all its right, title, interest and benefit, present and future, in and to each of the securities of such a class or description as may from time to time be designated by the European Central Bank as eligible for sale and/or purchase, as the case may be, by the Bank under its standard form for the time being of Master Repurchase Agreement, which specification may be made by reference to particular classes of repurchase transactions, and which are included in the schedule of Eligible Securities provided to the Bank from time to time.”.

These charges were registered with the CRO on 15th February 2008, yet there is no mention whatsoever of these charges in the Banks 2008 Annual Accounts (see attached).

Ulster Bank is a 100% Owned Subsidiary of the UK (now taxpayer owned) Institution - The Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS)

This affects US investors as well and this piece should be well read by anyone in the US, UK or Ireland who has lost money investing in RBS/Ulster Bank Group.

In 2008, RBS traded ADR’s in the U.S. under the symbol .NYSE:RBS. These ADR’s were traded OTC. This gives the SEC jurisdiction over the companies US securities.

What happened behind closed doors?

Ulster Bank gave a first floating charge in favor of the Central Bank of Ireland (an arm of the European Central Bank) and the Financial Services Authority of Ireland. U.S. investors would have had to rely on the contents of The Royal Bank of Scotland's 2008 Annual Accounts which apparently (in my opinion) concealed the existence of the CRO registered charges to the Bank of Ireland.

I also attach charge documents that Ulster Bank entered into with Pfizer International Bank. I cannot find these charges in any disclosures.

If you look at the attached charge documents from Ulster Bank to the Central Bank you will see that the wording is different when compared to the charge documents of the other Irish Banks. It specifically states that a first floating charge was created by the Deed of Floating Charge over Eligible Securities for Liabilities Arising in Target2-Ireland. Having said that I can see no mention of these charges in the Annual Accounts for 2008. On page 72 (28) of the Annual Accounts it gives the only details that I can find of charges registered. It states that A registered charge exists over the assets of the Group, securing all borrowings and other obligations in whatever form that relate to the Group's use of the Euroclear system, that are outstanding to Morgan Guaranty Brussels and to any other office of Morgan Guaranty Trust Company of New York. This looks as if it could be a double encumbrance of certain assets for the charge to the Central Bank of Ireland features very similar, all-encompassing language for Ulster Bank, which is a fully owned subsidiary of RBS. Although I'm not an international banking attorney, my layman's eye sees double counting of collateral barring a clause that somehow excludes that covered by the charge over Ulster Bank.

There are also two charge documents for Ulster Bank to Pfizer International Bank. One is for 2009 and the other for 2010. I can see no mention of these in the 2009 and 2010 Annual Accounts.

These charge documents are also not apparent in the recent bank ‘stress testing’ conducted by the European Banking Authority, at least not in the summary results that the EBA have made available, reference RBS Stress Test.

I cannot see how the charge documents are disclosed in the RBS annual accounts (annual report). I see it mentions that the Bank provides collateral in the form of securities in repurchase agreements (footnote page 41). On page 60 it states the Group engages in securitization transactions of its residential loans which are generally transferred to a special purpose entity. This likely relates to the cashflows and not the principal. The charge documents relate to the principal (the actual loan). The registered charge (page 72) exists over the assets of the Group, securing all borrowings and other obligations whatsoever that relate to the Group's use of the Euroclear system (privately owned by J.P.Morgan, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euroclear).

The charge documents are not covered in the Ulster Bank Annual Accounts or the SEC Group RBS Annual Report. I think that this is a serious misrepresentation of the Accounts/Annual Report. The charge is a floating charge over Secured Obligations (Repo Agreements) which means all present and future liabilities of Ulster Bank (100% owned by RBS). As stated Target2 is only a payment system. The true reasons for the charge increasingly appear to be that of emergency funding, for it also appears as if Ulster Bank was bust. This information should have been included in the SEC Group RBS Annual Report, especially when ADR's were being traded.

RBS Stress Tests

The afore-linked copy of the RBS Stress Test results do not make it possible to determine whether the charge documents were included in the Stress Test, however it is worth pointing out that the charges do not appear in the annual accounts, so one could assume that they were not included in the stress test. The information is based on data supplied by each bank, via its respective national supervisor. Accuracy of this data is primarily the responsibility of the participating bank and national supervisor. This information has been provided to the EBA in accordance with Article 35 of EU Regulation 1093/2010. The EBA bears no responsibility for errors/discrepancies that may arise in the tables.

A Short Traipse Through Recent History & The Expense That Ultimately Befalls The UK Taxpayer

In 2007 Ireland had significant cross border exposure to UK and US banks through derivatives and property products. As I warned in 2007, the real estate bubble in the the US/UK popped in 2008, sending pathogenic contagion straight through the Irish banking system. The entire banking system started collapsing. On February 15, 2008, Ireland took extraordinary measures (which we will explore in depth a little later on) to mitigate said collapse, measures that many a layperson would deem misleading, if not fraudulent. RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland, one of the largest financial institutions in the countries of Ireland and the UK) was effectively nationalized by the UK and a bad bank was formed to purchase bad debt/products from the Zombie Irish banks in exchange for government bonds, backed by a country that just simply couldn't afford it.

It was the UK taxpayer that footed the bill for this nationalization - as per Wikipedia:

The bonus payments paid to RBS staff subsequent to the 2008 United Kingdom bank rescue package have led to controversy. Staff bonuses were nearly £1 billion in 2010, even though RBS reported losses of £1.1 billion for 2010. More than 100 senior bank executives were paid in excess of £1 million each in bonuses. Consequently, former CEO Fred Goodwin was stripped of his knighthood in mid-January, and newly appointed CEO Stephen Hester renounced his £1 million bonus after complaints over the bank’s performance.

82 percent of RBS' shares are now owned by the UK government, which bought RBS stock for £42 billion, representing 50 pence per share. In 2011, the shares were worth 19 pence, representing a taxpayer book loss of £26 billion ($40B). Historically, the RBS stock price went from a high of over 700 pence in early 2007 (taking into account a 3 for 1 stock split that took place later that year) to around 20 pence in late 2011.

... the UK Government (HM Treasury), as of 31 March 2012, holds and manages an 82% stake through UK Financial Investments Limited(UKFI), whose voting rights are limited to 75% in order for the bank to retain its listing on the London Stock Exchange. In addition to its primary share listing on the LSE, the company is also listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The group is based in Edinburgh, Scotland. In 2009, after the financial collapse, it was briefly the world's largest company by both assets (£1.9 trillion) and liabilities (£1.8 trillion). In 2012, the UK government announced plans to bid for the rest of the RBS shares that it did not own, as it felt that "while the taxpayer owns over 82pc of the bank following a bailout in 2008, they bear 100pc of the bank's huge liability risks".

Part and parcel of the RBS problems was its purchase of Ulster Bank and its exposure to the Irish lending issues!

The app below allows the UK Taxpayer to calculate for themselves exactly what their individual contribution (pro rata) is to the government bailout of RBS.

I've taken the liberty of pre-populating the input fields for you, but if you don't agree with the numbers then by all means insert your own!

Following my warning in February of 2008, Lehman filed bankruptcy in September sending an additional set of contagion shock through Ireland and its banking system, causing Ireland to issues bonds and further indebt itself to save its Zombie banks – again! This time through blanket bank guarantees backed by the full faith of the government.

In September of 2010, a large swath of said government guarantees for the banks were about to expire. Reference this excerpt from the book “Zombie Banks: How Broken Banks and Debtor Nations Are Crippling the Global Economy”:

In September 2010, some of Ireland's government guarantees for bank debts were about to expire, which put U.S. Treasury officials on edge. If the guarantee wasn't renewed, the banks would likely default on their bonds, triggering the next event in line: a slew of credit default swap (CDS) contracts on Irish banks' debt. U.S. Treasury officials had reason to worry - the names backing those contracts were the largest U .S. banks, and they could end up paying billions in case of default. Any more weight on U.S. banks could be a tipping point to collapse. Treasury officials made inquiries to their counterparts at the Irish finance ministry asking about the course of action the country was planning to take and indicated their concern about possible default and its CDS repercussions. A year after having issued blanket guarantees on the banks' liabilities the Irish government once again didn't dare let the bank fail. Instead it ended up asking for financial assistance from the European Union (EU) and the International Monetary Fund (IIMF): the country had been pushed to the brink of collapse.

ULSTER BANK’S parent company, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), injected as much as £4 billion (€4.7 billion) into Ulster Bank last year, bringing its total investment in its Irish subsidiary to £10 billion (€11.8 billion) since 2008.

If you have believe that the information above actually identifies a gross misrepresentation of fact, omission or outright fraud, simply contact the SEC and let them know that Reggie Middleton suggested they look into it. You can actually use this form to convey my message.

We supervise firms differently depending on their size and the nature of their business. This includes:

continuous conduct assessment for large firms and regular assessment for smaller firms

monitoring products and other issues to ensure firms play fair and don’t compromise consumer interests

responding quickly and decisively to events or problems that threaten the integrity of the industry

ensuring firms compensate consumers when necessary

Well, straight from the horse's mouth. Have at 'em. They should do the right thing, and EU media should pick up on this as well. You don''t want your 2,000+ pound/euro bank bailout investment to be handled solely by a blogger from NYC, do you???!!!

For paid subscribers, I've posted another potentially "Cyprus'd" EU bank with shortable US/LSE traded shares/options for subscribers, reference EU Bank Capital Confusion, Part 2 - Malarkey (you may subscribe here). Over the next 36 hours or so, I will be releasing an even bigger scandal that is even more far reaching. Stay tuned!!!

The Irish authorities have officially indicated that they are looking into the matter. Could this be the reason why Ireland's top bregulator stepped down so quickly that he forgot to take his bonus?

{youtube}7gwCdgmTttU{/youtube}

If you have believe that the information below actually identifies a gross misrepresentation of fact, omission or outright fraud, simply contact the SEC and let them know that Reggie Middleton suggested they look into it. You can actually use this form to convey my message. For paid subcribers, I've posted another potentially "Cyprus'd" EU bank with shortable US/LSE traded shares/options for subscribers, reference EU Bank Capital Confusion, Part 2 - Malarkey (you may subscribe here). Over the next 36 hours or so, I will be releasing an even bigger scandal that is even more far reaching. Stay tuned!!!

]]>reggie@boombustblog.com (Reggie Middleton)BoomBustBlogThu, 11 Apr 2013 14:10:30 +0000The Next Leg Of That Counterparty Led European Bank Run Has Put On It's Running Shoehttp://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9058-the-next-leg-of-that-counterparty-led-european-bank-run-has-put-on-its-running-shoe
http://boombustblog.com/blog/item/9058-the-next-leg-of-that-counterparty-led-european-bank-run-has-put-on-its-running-shoe

The subject of our most recent expose on the European banking system has a plethora of problems, including but not limited to excessive PIIGS exposure, NPA growth up the yin-yang, Texas ratios and Eyles test numbers that’ll make you shiver and razor thin provisions. Focusing on the most pertinent and contagious of the issues at hand leads us back to the initial premise of a European bank run. I laid the foundation for said topic discussion last Thursday in "The Fuel Behind Institutional “Runs on the Bank" Burns Through Europe, Lehman-Style" and the fear du jour is a European version of the Lehman Brothers or Bear Stearns style bank run. The aforelinked at explanatory piece is a must read precursor to this illustration of what can only be described as the anatomy of a European bank run - before the fact. Remember how the pieces of the puzzle were perfectly laid together for a Bear Stearns collapse in January of 2008, two months before the bank's actual collapse? Reference "Is this the Breaking of the Bear?" in which Bear Stearns collapse was illustrated in explicit, graphic detail. Lehman Brothers wasn't impossible to see either (Is Lehman really a lemming in disguise? Thursday, February 21st, 2008 | Web chatter on Lehman Brothers Sunday, March 16th, 2008).

The modern central banking system has proven resilient enough to fortify banks against depositor runs, as was recently exemplified in the recent depositor runs on UK, Irish, Portuguese and Greek banks – most of which received relatively little fanfare. Where the risk truly lies in today’s fiat/fractional reserve banking system is the run on counterparties. Today’s global fractional reserve bank get’s more financing from institutional counterparties than any other source save its short term depositors. In cases of the perception of extreme risk, these counterparties are prone to pull funding are request overcollateralization for said funding. This is what precipitated the collapse of Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, the pulling of liquidity by skittish counterparties, and the excessive capital/collateralization calls by other counterparties. Keep in mind that as some counterparties and/or depositors pull liquidity, covenants are tripped that often demand additional capital/collateral/ liquidity be put up by the remaining counterparties, thus daisy-chaining into a modern day run on the bank!

image006

I'm sure many of you may be asking yourselves, "Well, how likely is this counterparty run to happen today? You know, with the full, unbridled printing press power of the ECB, and all..." Well, don't bet the farm on overconfidence. The risk of a capital haircut for European banks with exposure to sovereign debt of fiscally challenged nations is inevitable. A more important concern appears to be the threat of short-term liquidity and funding difficulties for European banks stemming from said haircuts. This is the one thing that holds the entire European banking sector hostage, yet it is also the one thing that the Europeans refuse to stress test for (twice), thus removing any remaining shred of credibility from European bank stress tests. As I have stated many time before, Multiple Botched and Mismanaged Stress Test Have Created The Makings Of A Pan-European Bank Run!

So, why have I dragged my readers back down this dark corridor of memory lane once again?

Such an idea, should ministers back it, could further rattle the confidence of lenders, already nervous about draft legislation to determine who alongside shareholders should suffer losses when a bank gets into trouble.

EU finance ministers, gathering in Dublin this Friday, will discuss how to shape this law that could take effect from 2015, covering what is known as bank recovery and resolution.

The talks follow the recent decision to impose heavy losses on some depositors in Cyprus, in return for an international bailout. That set a precedent, which is likely to be mirrored in these EU rules, making losses for large uninsured savers a permanent feature of future banking crises.

But the ministers will have to tread carefully in their discussions.

ECB President Mario Draghi recently cautioned that Cyprus's bailout was "no template", in a bid to ease market fears that bank deposits would in future be fair game for international lenders supporting struggling euro zone countries.

In a document prepared by government officials in Ireland, which as holder of the rotating EU presidency will chair the ministers' gathering, they write that interbank deposits of less than one month should also be penalized.

Hmmm!!!! It appears as if Irish officials may be prepping for something. I trully wonder what that may be...

{youtube}7gwCdgmTttU{/youtube}

The proposal will be part of wider talks to consider when, for example, depositors should be penalized if a bank runs into difficulty. This is known as bail-in.

Shareholders are the first to lose their money, with various rankings of creditors behind them.

Customer bank deposits of up to 100,000 euros would remain protected under an existing EU law and the latest proposals touch on sums above this threshold.

That is, unless EU officials decide to change their mind or coerce EU countries to change the laws. Reference, from just a few weeks ago,

"While it is acknowledged that bailing in interbank liabilities may carry certain risks," officials write in the document, seen by Reuters, "on balance, it is preferable ... that these liabilities are not excluded from bail-in".

Such a suggestion will dismay many officials, who witnessed a freeze in interbank lending that the European Central Bank is still struggling to unblock despite having provided more than one trillion euros of cheap funds.

The little app below calculates what return you should expect to receive to take on the risk of a potential 40% haircut. The second tab offers what recent Cyprus bank rates were. Do you see a disparity???

Any Irish taxpayer or bank depositor that watches any TV yet fails to view this video is not acting in a prudent manner, in my oh so humble opinion. Any Irish or US bank investor or regulator who ignores this video is not acting in a prudent manner, in my humble opinion.

The video is presented, without further comment...

{youtube}7gwCdgmTttU{/youtube}

The posts are presented here which contain all of the documentation referenced in the video:

(Reuters) - Big bank depositors could take a hit under planned European Union law if a bank fails, the EU's economic affairs chief Olli Rehn said on Saturday, but noted that Cyprus's bailout model was exceptional.

Okay, I get it now. Cyprus was exceptional, it's just that we are preparing for exceptional to be codified into law to make it common place. Of course!

"Cyprus was a special case ... but the upcoming directive assumes that investor and depositor liability will be carried out in case of a bank restructuring or a wind-down," Rehn, the European Economic and Monetary Affairs Commissioner, said in a TV interview with Finland's national broadcaster YLE.

The only thing "special case" about Cyprus was that it was first!

"But there is a very clear hierarchy, at first the shareholders, then possibly the unprotected investments and deposits. However, the limit of 84,890 pounds is sacred, deposits smaller than that are always safe."

I was curious to see how they could impose losses on insured accounts in the first place, after all the accounts were insured basically (through implied backstop) by the same entities (EU/EC/ECB) that were attempting to force the loss, no?

Yes, the powers that be were not only clearly considering the confiscation of so-called insured assets, they actually were moving forward to implement such until the backlash was perceived to be strong enough to consider 'alternative measures'! Mr. Rehn's comments are still quite suspect, after all... Exactly what is the definition of "SAFE"? Does this include the ability to access your money? Again, as excerpted from "Mainstream Media Says Cyprus Salvaged By…"

You see, once capital controls (the same capital controls I clearly warned of last year) are placed upon your money in such a fashion as to prevent you from accessing it, is it still really your money??? I guess one can consider it safe, as long as you don't want any of it!!!

Now, I've been warning for the past two weeks or so that more of the same will likely come the way of the Irishman, reference:

I consider these posts to be a tour de force in investigative journalism and forensic financial analysis. In them, I have named 4 of Ireland's biggest banks as not having properly disclosed charges, borrowings and encumbrances. I actually have significantly more to go - yes, that's right - more banks, and even in more countries. This begs the question, how is it that the Irish people have to hear that their largest banks (several of them, not just one or two) have concealed these issues after extreme austerity and billions upon billions of euros of bailouts

Hey, I have an even better question. Why is it that the Irish have to hear it and see the proof from a Blogger in NYC versus the (in no particular order):

audit firms that audited the banks;

the banks management;

the sell side analysts that follow these banks;

the politicians who create and oversee legislation regarding these banks;

or the regulatory agencies that oversee these banks!

One would think that the audit firms would really be on the hook, no? I must assume the legal firms in Ireland are in no way as aggressive as they are stateside....

We just had a changing of the guard at the SEC in that states, and this is a perfect opportunity for the new guard to show that they are worth their mettle and represent a significant departure from the less than totally effective bastion of the recent past. You have hundreds of thousands of readers and subscribers watching you guys. Do the right thing!

Anyone who wishes to give the SEC a little nudge can read the links above and submit your thoughts directly. Simply contact the SEC and let them know that Reggie Middleton suggested they look into these articles and the related research. You can actually use this form to convey my message. My next post will reveal a BLOCKBUSTER, linking a bigger more systemic country to the fray!

In the meantime, my professional & institutional subscribers can download the relevant info right now - along with several hundred pages of supporting documentation. See